Screening colonoscopy in balance. Issues of implementation

Using resource modelling to inform decision making and service planning: the case of colorectal cancer screening in Ireland

Background

Organised colorectal cancer screening is likely to be cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness results alone may not help policy makers to make decisions about programme feasibility or service providers to plan programme delivery. For these purposes, estimates of the impact on the health services of actually introducing screening in the target population would be helpful. However, these types of analyses are rarely reported. As an illustration of such an approach, we estimated annual health service resource requirements and health outcomes over the first decade of a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme in Ireland.

Methods

A Markov state-transition model of colorectal neoplasia natural history was used. Three core screening scenarios were considered: (a) flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) once at age 60, (b) biennial guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) at 55–74 years, and (c) biennial faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) at 55–74 years. Three alternative FIT roll-out scenarios were also investigated relating to age-restricted screening (55–64 years) and staggered age-based roll-out across the 55–74 age group. Parameter estimates were derived from literature review, existing screening programmes, and expert opinion. Results were expressed in relation to the 2008 population (4.4 million people, of whom 700,800 were aged 55–74).

Results

FIT-based screening would deliver the greatest health benefits, averting 164 colorectal cancer cases and 272 deaths in year 10 of the programme. Capacity would be required for 11,095-14,820 diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies annually, compared to 381–1,053 with FSIG-based, and 967–1,300 with gFOBT-based, screening. With FIT, in year 10, these colonoscopies would result in 62 hospital admissions for abdominal bleeding, 27 bowel perforations and one death. Resource requirements for pathology, diagnostic radiology, radiotherapy and colorectal resection were highest for FIT. Estimates depended on screening uptake. Alternative FIT roll-out scenarios had lower resource requirements.

Conclusions

While FIT-based screening would quite quickly generate attractive health outcomes, it has heavy resource requirements. These could impact on the feasibility of a programme based on this screening modality. Staggered age-based roll-out would allow time to increase endoscopy capacity to meet programme requirements. Resource modelling of this type complements conventional cost-effectiveness analyses and can help inform policy making and service planning.

Plans to stop cancer screening tests among adults who recently considered screening

OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate what proportion of adults plan to stop cancer screening tests among adults who recently considered screening and to explore factors associated with these screening plans.

DESIGN

Telephone Survey

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1,237 participants aged 50 and older who reported having made one or more cancer screening decisions in the past 2 years completed 1,454 cancer screening modules for breast, prostate and colorectal screening.

MAIN RESULTS

Of all module respondents, 9.8% reported plans to stop screening, 12.6% for breast, 6.0 % for prostate and 9.5% for colon cancer. We found no statistically significant differences in plans to stop for those ages >or=70 (8.2%) compared to those ages 50 to 69 (10.2%) (p = 0.14.) Black respondents were less likely to report plans to stop than white respondents (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.12, 0.87). Participation in the decision-making process was associated with plans to stop screening; those who reported they made the final decision about screening (OR 5.9, 95% CI 1.4, 24.7) or made the decision with the health care provider (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.0, 16.8) were more likely to have plans to stop screening compared to respondents who reported that their health care provider made the final decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Plans to stop screening were uncommon among participants who had recently faced a screening decision. Given the recent US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations limiting routine cancer screening for older adults, additional efforts to educate adults about the potential risks and benefits of screening may be warranted.

Comfort and efficacy of a longer and thinner endoscope for average risk colon cancer screening

The aim of this prospective study was to assess patient comfort during nonsedated screening sigmoidoscopy with the use of a standard 60-cm sigmoidoscope compared with a thinner 100-cm upper endoscope. Patients undergoing routine colon cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy were randomly assigned to either a 60-cm sigmoidoscope or a 100-cm upper endoscope. The procedure time, depth of insertion, anatomic landmarks, and presence of polyps were documented. Likert 7-point scales and visual analog scales (VAS) were performed to measure comfort and symptoms immediately after the procedure and again in 1 week. These scales, procedure time, insertion depth, percent reaching transverse colon, and percent with polyps were analyzed. Eighty-one patients were enrolled with 38 in the 100-cm group and 43 in the 60-cm group. Patients in the 100-cm group reported greater comfort on the VAS compared with the 60-cm group (P = .035) as well as less cramping on the initial Likert scale (P = .017). One week later, the 100-cm group reported higher comfort (P = .015) and less bloating (P = .040). Procedure time was longer for the 100-cm group (8.8 versus 5.9 minutes; P = .001). Insertion depth was 74 versus 56 cm (P = .001), and percent reaching splenic flexure was 76% versus 35% (P = .001) in the 100 and 60 cm groups, respectively. More adenomas were found with the 100-cm scope (P = .035). The use of a thinner and longer endoscope is more comfortable than a standard sigmoidoscope. Although a 100-cm endoscope procedure takes longer to perform, it allows better evaluation of the colon and misses fewer adenomas.

Primer: applying the new postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines in clinical practice

Colonoscopy is being increasingly used for colorectal cancer screening, which has resulted in a growing cohort of patients who have polyps that require postpolypectomy surveillance. Risk stratification enables postpolypectomy surveillance to be tailored to individual patient needs, and this is one of the fundamental points emphasized by the unified US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society (USMSTF-ACS) guidelines. Most patients do not require intensive surveillance; those patients who have one or two small (<1 cm) adenomas can safely undergo repeat colonoscopy after 5-10 years. Consensus guidelines that merge the recommendations of all societies are more user-friendly than individual guidelines, decrease confusion, and eliminate conflicting recommendations that are a barrier to guideline uptake. Nonetheless, studies have shown that specialists and nonspecialists overutilize colonoscopy for postpolypectomy surveillance, which places a large burden on already strained resources. Barriers to guideline implementation include factors involving the patient, physician, and health-care system. Physician education and widespread implementation of continuous quality improvement programs are required to bridge the gap between the guidelines and their clinical application.

Repeat colonoscopy has a low yield even in symptomatic patients

BACKGROUND

In many regions, the demand for colonoscopy exceeds its availability. Patients undergoing repeat examinations comprise a significant proportion of those on waiting lists.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the yield of repeat colonoscopy in varied clinical settings.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Endoscopic database of an Australian tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

Adults who had >/=2 colonoscopies between 1992 and 2004. Patients were excluded if the repeat procedure was for completion or for high-risk surveillance.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Yield for neoplasia by indication, interval to repeat examination, and appropriateness for surveillance (determined by National Australian guidelines).

RESULTS

A total of 4974 colonoscopies in 2075 patients were studied. The mean age was 63.1 years (range, 19.2-92.4 years). The mean number of examinations was 2.4 (range, 2-8), with a mean interval between examinations of 2.9 years. Colorectal cancer (CRC) was significantly more prevalent at initial colonoscopy compared with subsequent colonoscopies (7.9% vs 0.6%; prevalence ratio 14.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.5-23.7, P < .001), as were advanced adenomas (15.3% vs 4.8%; prevalence ratio 3.2, 95% CI 2.6-3.9, P < .001). No CRCs were detected in symptomatic patients undergoing polyp surveillance examinations performed before the recommended interval.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Yield of repeat colonoscopy is significantly lower than for initial colonoscopy, irrespective of indication. In symptomatic patients within a polyp surveillance program, the yield is negligible when a colonoscopy is performed before the recommended surveillance interval. The need for a repeat colonoscopy should be carefully considered, and patients who have never had a colonoscopy must take priority on waiting lists over those awaiting repeat examinations.

Review article: Population screening for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is a common cancer and common cause of death. The mortality rate from colorectal cancer can be reduced by identification and removal of cancer precursors, adenomas, or by detection of cancer at an earlier stage. Pilot screening programmes have demonstrated decreased colorectal cancer mortality; as a result many countries are developing colorectal cancer screening programmes. The most common modalities being evaluated are faecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Implementation of screening tests has been hampered by cost, invasiveness, availability of resources and patient acceptance. New technologies such at computed tomographic colonography and stool screening for molecular markers of neoplasia are in development as potential minimally invasive tools. This review considers who should be screened, which test to use and how often to screen.

Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance among urban Hispanics

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer among Latinos; screening can reduce mortality from CRC. The aims of this study are; to assess the current compliance with free colorectal cancer screening among Hispanic women who are participating in a national breast and cervical cancer screening program (NBCCEDP), and to examine the effects of a set of key constructs from the HBM and the TPB on compliance with the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT). We consecutively recruited 950 women from among those attending an initial appointment at an NBCCEDP site in northern Manhattan, and administered a questionnaire. Patients were offered a free Hemoccult kit, alongside instructions and print materials. The rate of FOBT compliance (in kit return) was 77.3%. Fatalism remained a statistically significant influence on FOBT compliance in the multivariate models, and there was a trend for higher FOBT return among West Indies women (primarily from the Dominican Republic). The findings of this study demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of distributing FOBT kits through an existing national program for cancer screening of women. The results justify replication in a more heterogeneous group of Hispanics, with longer-term followup.

Cancer screening among Latino subgroups in the United States

BACKGROUND

Relying upon the Health Belief Model and a behavioral model of health care utilization, the purpose of this study was to examine current adherence to cancer screening among Latino subgroups.

METHODS

Using data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey, 5377 Latinos were surveyed for their use of Pap smear, mammogram, breast self-examination and the clinical breast exam among women, prostate specific antigen test among men, and the fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and proctoscopy among both men and women. Using sampling weights, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess screening use.

RESULTS

Dominican women had 2.4 times greater likelihood of having had mammography than other Latinos. In addition, Latinas aged 50-69, who had more years of education, a personal history of cancer, who were not current smokers, had health insurance, had visited a primary care provider over the past 12 months, and had at least one other screening test had greater use of mammography. Younger age, marriage, greater acculturation, visits to a primary care provider, health insurance, and the use of other cancer screening tests predicted the uptake of the Pap smear. Latinas were more likely to use a CBE if they were younger, had a Bachelor's degree, a personal history of cancer, were more acculturated, had visits to a primary care provider over the past 12 months, and used other cancer screening tests. Puerto Ricans, Central or South Americans had half the likelihood of having colorectal cancer screening than other groups. Ages between 50 and 69, male sex, marriage, history of visiting a health care provider, and use of other screening tests predicted use of the FOBT. Older age, greater education, male sex, history of visiting a health care provider in the previous year, use of other screening tests, and better health status influenced the uptake of endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Cuban males had fivefold greater utilization of PSA testing. Additionally, PSA use among Latinos was predicted by older age, history of visiting a primary care provider in the past 12 months, and use of other screening tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer screening programs must take into account differences among Latinos in age, gender, educational levels, marital status, cancer history, risk behaviors, insurance, health status and health services utilization.

Is colorectal cancer an avoidable disease nowadays?

Colorectal cancer is a major cause of cancer death in Western countries. Colorectal cancer screening is effective. To promote primary prevention and screening in high, increased as well as average risk populations remains a public health challenge. Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer that involves the long-term use of pharmacological agents as aspirin also seems to be effective.

Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems

Individuals are increasingly involved in decisions about their health care. Shared decision making (SDM), an intervention in the clinical setting in which patients and providers collaborate in decision making, is an important approach for informing patients and involving them in their health care. However, SDM cannot bear the entire burden for informing and involving individuals. Population-oriented interventions to promote informed decision making (IDM) should also be explored. This review provides a conceptual background for population-oriented interventions to promote informed decisions (IDM interventions), followed by a systematic review of studies of IDM interventions to promote cancer screening. This review specifically asked whether IDM interventions (1) promote understanding of cancer screening, (2) facilitate participation in decision making about cancer screening at a level that is comfortable for individuals; or (3) encourage individuals to make cancer-screening decisions that are consistent with their preferences and values.Fifteen intervention arms met the intervention definition. They used small media, counseling, small-group education, provider-oriented strategies, or combinations of these to promote IDM. The interventions were generally consistent in improving individuals' knowledge about the disease, accuracy of risk perceptions, or knowledge and beliefs about the pros and cons of screening and treatment options. However, few studies evaluated whether these interventions resulted in individuals participating in decision making at a desirable level, or whether they led to decisions that were consistent with individuals' values and preferences. More research is needed on how best to promote and facilitate individuals' participation in health care. Work is especially needed on how to facilitate participation at a level desired by individuals, how to promote decisions by patients that are consistent with their preferences and values, how to perform effective and cost-effective IDM interventions for healthcare systems and providers and in community settings (outside of clinical settings), and how to implement these interventions in diverse populations (such as populations that are older, nonwhite, or disadvantaged). Finally, work is needed on the presence and magnitude of barriers to and harms of IDM interventions and how they might be avoided.