Colorectal cancer screening in patients with spinal cord injury yields similar results to the general population with an effective bowel preparation: a retrospective chart audit

Primary Care in the Spinal Cord Injury Population: Things to Consider in the Ongoing Discussion

Purpose of Review

Spinal cord injury (SCI) creates unique needs that if not recognized and addressed timely can have detrimental effects on the health and quality of life (QOL) of people living with a SCI. Primary preventive health care is shown to decrease morbidity and mortality, yet the SCI population reportedly faces challenges getting access to this care. This area in SCI health care is still largely understudied with no consensus on the ideal way or which health care provider is best to provide primary care for this population.

Findings

Preventive care is generally provided by general primary care providers, but not all primary care providers are trained in recognizing and addressing spinal cord injury-specific needs. SCI providers generally are not trained in addressing all aspects of preventive care. Knowing the recommended preventive care screenings, recognizing and managing specific conditions seen after a SCI, and seamless coordination of care between general practitioners and SCI specialists are some of the interventions to help prevent health complications, decrease morbidity and mortality, improve health outcomes, and promote QOL in this patient population.

Summary

Prioritized focus on preventive care is necessary for a positive impact on the overall health and QOL in this population. Addressing the knowledge gap reported by primary care providers and SCI providers may help increase the probability of SCI patients getting their preventive and specialty care needs addressed. We present a "cheat sheet" of recommendations for the preventive care evaluation of a person living with a SCI.

Colorectal cancer mortality after spinal cord injury

Context: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in the US. There is paucity of data regarding CRC and the spinal cord injury (SCI) community. Persons with SCI have suboptimal rates of colonoscopies and face extensive barriers to care. The aim of our study was to compare CRC mortality in persons with SCI to CRC mortality in the general population.Design: A prospective follow-up study.Setting: Analysis of the National SCI database.Participants: 54,965 persons with SCI.Interventions: Not applicable.Outcome Measures: Current survival status and causes of death were determined. The expected number of CRC deaths was calculated for the general US population, using ICD-10 codes. Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated as the ratio of observed to expected CRC deaths stratified by current age, sex, race, time post-injury and neurologic group.Results: The CRC mortality was 146 persons out of 54,965 persons with SCI. The overall SMR was determined to be 1.11 (95% CI [0.94, 1.31]). Among subgroups, one finding was significant and this was for patients with injury level C1-4 with an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale Grade of A, B or C with an SMR of 1.68 ([95% CI [1.03-2.61]).Conclusion: Although persons with SCI receive suboptimal rates of preventative care screenings and report extensive barriers to care, overall, they are not at an increased risk of CRC mortality. The current recommendations for CRC screening should be continued for these individuals while reducing barriers to care.

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.

Recommendations for evaluation of neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction after spinal cord injury and/or disease

Objective: To provide an overview of clinical assessments and diagnostic tools, self-report measures (SRMs) and data sets used in neurogenic bladder and bowel (NBB) dysfunction and recommendations for their use with persons with spinal cord injury /disease (SCI/D).Methods: Experts in SCI/D conducted literature reviews, compiled a list of NBB related assessments and measures, reviewed their psychometric properties, discussed their use in SCI/D and issued recommendations for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Common Data Elements (CDEs) guidelines.Results: Clinical assessments included 15 objective tests and diagnostic tools for neurogenic bladder and 12 for neurogenic bowel. Following a two-phase evaluation, eight SRMs were selected for final review with the Qualiveen and Short-Form (SF) Qualiveen and the Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score (NBDS) being recommended as supplemental, highly-recommended due to their strong psychometrics and extensive use in SCI/D. Two datasets and other SRM measures were recommended as supplemental.Conclusion: There is no one single measure that can be used to assess NBB dysfunction across all clinical research studies. Clinical and diagnostic tools are here recommended based on specific medical needs of the person with SCI/D. Following the CDE for SCI studies guidelines, we recommend both the SF-Qualiveen for bladder and the NBDS for bowel as relatively short measures with strong psychometrics. Other measures are also recommended. A combination of assessment tools (objective and subjective) to be used jointly across the spectrum of care seems critical to best capture changes related to NBB and develop better treatments.

Bowel Dysfunction in Spinal Cord Injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate and report current evidence regarding the management of bowel dysfunction in spinal cord injury. There is a paucity of high-quality large studies on which to base management advice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research has focused on defining the nature of symptomatology of bowel dysfunction in SCI and describing the effects on quality of life and social interactions. Technical aspects of colonoscopy have received attention, and aspects of understanding the pathophysiology in relation to both neural and non-neural dysfunction have been studied. There has been refinement and expansion of the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for bowel dysfunction in SCI. Management of bowel dysfunction in SCI requires a comprehensive and individualized approach, encompassing lifestyle, toileting routine, stimulation, diet, medications, and surgery. Further high-quality research is required to inform best practice.