A Multi-Level Fit-Based Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Managed Care Population

Community Collaboration to Advance Racial/Ethnic Equity in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Multilevel Intervention to Improve Screening and Follow-up in Community Health Centers

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization is low among low-income, uninsured, and minority populations that receive care in community health centers (CHCs). There is a need for evidence-based interventions to increase screening and follow-up care in these settings.

METHODS

A multilevel, multi-component pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial is being conducted at 8 CHCs in two metropolitan areas (Boston and Los Angeles), with two arms: (1) Mailed FIT outreach with text reminders, and (2) Mailed FIT-DNA with patient support. We also include an additional CHC in Rapid City (South Dakota) that follows a parallel protocol for FIT-DNA but is not randomized due to lack of a comparison group. Eligible individuals in participating clinics are primary care patients ages 45-75, at average-risk for CRC, and overdue for CRC screening. Participants with abnormal screening results are offered navigation for follow-up colonoscopy and CRC risk assessment.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is the completion rate of CRC screening at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include the screening completion rate at 180 days and the rate of colonoscopy completion within 6 months among participants with an abnormal result. Additional goals are to enhance our understanding of facilitators and barriers to CRC risk assessment in CHC settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study assesses the effectiveness of two multilevel interventions to increase screening participation and follow-up after abnormal screening in under-resourced clinical settings, informing future efforts to address CRC disparities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05714644.

Abnormal Colorectal Cancer Test Follow-Up: A Quality Improvement Initiative at a Federally Qualified Health Center

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy completion rates after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are suboptimal, resulting in missed opportunities for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Patient navigation and structured follow-up may improve colonoscopy completion, but implementation of these strategies is not widespread.

METHODS

We conducted a quality improvement study using a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Model to increase colonoscopy completion after abnormal FIT in a large federally qualified health center serving a diverse and low-income population. Intervention components included patient navigation, and a checklist to promote completion of key steps required for abnormal FIT follow-up. Primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving colonoscopy completion within 6 months of abnormal FIT, assessed at baseline for 156 patients pre-intervention, and compared to 208 patients during the intervention period from April 2017 to December 2019. Drop offs at each step in the follow-up process were assessed.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy completion improved from 21% among 156 patients with abnormal FIT pre-intervention, to 38% among 208 patients with abnormal FIT during the intervention (P < .001; absolute increase: 17%, 95% CI: 6.9%-25.2%). Among the 130 non-completers during the intervention period, lack of completion was attributable to absence of colonoscopy referral for 7.7%; inability to schedule a pre-colonoscopy specialist visit for 71.5%; failure to complete a pre-colonoscopy visit for 2.3%; the absence of colonoscopy scheduling for 9.2%; failure to show for a scheduled colonoscopy for 9.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient navigation and structured follow-up appear to improve colonoscopy completion after abnormal FIT. Additional strategies are needed to achieve optimal rates of completion.

The use of individual and multilevel data in the development of a risk prediction model to predict patients' likelihood of completing colorectal cancer screening

Promotion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can be expensive and unnecessary for many patients. The use of predictive analytics promises to help health systems target the right services to the right patients at the right time while improving population health. Multilevel data at the interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels, is rarely considered in clinical decision making but may be used to improve CRC screening risk prediction. We compared the effectiveness of a CRC screening risk prediction model that uses multilevel data with a more conventional model that uses only individual patient data. We used a retrospective cohort to ascertain the one-year occurrence of CRC screening. The cohort was determined from a Health Maintenance Organization, in Oregon. Eligible patients were 50-75 years old, health plan members for at least one year before their birthday in 2018 and were due for screening. We created a risk model using logistic regression first with data available in the electronic health record (EHR), and then added multilevel data. In a cohort of 59,249 patients, 36.1% completed CRC screening. The individual level model included 14 demographic, clinical and encounter based characteristics, had a bootstrap-corrected C-statistic of 0.722 and sufficient calibration. The multilevel model added 9 variables from clinical setting and community characteristics, and the bootstrap-corrected C-statistic remained the same with continued sufficient calibration. The predictive power of the CRC screening model did not improve after adding multilevel data. Our findings suggest that multilevel data added no improvement to the prediction of the likelihood of CRC screening.

Individuals With a Family History of Colorectal Cancer Warrant Tailored Interventions to Address Patient-Reported Barriers to Screening

INTRODUCTION

Population health interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates often exclude individuals with a family history of CRC, and interventions to increase screening in this high-risk group are rare. We aimed to determine the screening rate and barriers and facilitators to screening in this population to inform interventions to increase screening participation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review and cross-sectional survey of patients excluded from mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach because of a family history of CRC in a large health system. We used χ 2 , Fisher exact, and Student t tests to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients overdue and not overdue for screening. We then administered a survey (mailed and telephone) to overdue patients to assess barriers and facilitators to screening.

RESULTS

There were 296 patients excluded from mailed FIT outreach, and 233 patients had a confirmed family history of CRC. Screening participation was low (21.9%), and there were no significant demographic or clinical differences between those overdue and not overdue for screening. There were 79 survey participants. Major patient-reported barriers to screening colonoscopy were patient forgetfulness (35.9%), fear of pain during colonoscopy (17.7%), and hesitancy about bowel preparation (29.4%). To facilitate screening colonoscopy, patients recommended reminders (56.3%), education about familial risk (50%), and colonoscopy education (35.9%).

DISCUSSION

Patients with a family history of CRC who are excluded from mailed FIT outreach have low screening rates and report multiple mutable barriers to screening. They warrant targeted efforts to increase screening participation.

Effect of Patient Portal Messaging Before Mailing Fecal Immunochemical Test Kit on Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC mortality; however, screening rates remain well below the national benchmark of 80%.

Objective

To determine whether an electronic primer message delivered through the patient portal increases the completion rate of CRC screening in a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this randomized clinical quality improvement trial at the University of California, Los Angeles Health of 2339 patients enrolled in a FIT mailing program from August 28, 2019, to September 20, 2020, patients were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention group, and the screening completion rate was measured at 6 months. Participants were average-risk managed care patients aged 50 to 75 years, with a valid mailing address, no mailed CRC outreach in the previous 6 months, and an active electronic health record (EHR) patient portal who were due for CRC screening. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Interventions

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either (1) the standard FIT mailed outreach (control group) or (2) the standard FIT mailed outreach plus an automated primer to notify patients of the upcoming mailed FIT sent through the electronic patient portal (intervention group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the screening completion rate (ie, returning the FIT). Secondary outcomes were (1) were the time to CRC screening from the FIT mailing date, (2) screening modality completed, and (3) the effect of opening the electronic primer on screening completion rate.

Results

The study included 2339 patients (1346 women [57.5%]; mean [SD] age, 58.9 [7.5] years). The screening completion rate was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (37.6% [445 of 1182] vs 32.1% [371 of 1157]; P = .005). The time to screening was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P = .003). The proportion of each screening test modality completed was similar in both groups. In a subanalysis of the 900 of 1182 patients (76.1%) in the intervention group who opened the patient portal primer message, there was a 7.3-percentage point (95% CI, 2.3-12.4 percentage points) increase in CRC screening (local mean treatment effect; P = .004).

Conclusions and Relevance

Implementation of an electronic patient portal primer message in a mailed FIT outreach program led to a significant increase in CRC screening and improvement in the time to screening completion. The findings provide an evidence base for additional refinements to mailed FIT outreach quality improvement programs in large health systems.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05115916.

Undertaking general practice quality improvement to improve cancer screening - a thematic analysis of provider experiences

Background

Cancer is a major cause of illness and death, and its incidence and mortality can be reduced through effective screening. In order to improve below target screening rates in one region of Australia, the local Primary Health Network supported local general practices to implement a range of quality improvement initiatives.

Methods

We used a qualitative approach and interviewed 18 general practice staff and five Primary Health Network staff and contractors to understand their experiences with these quality improvement initiatives.

Results

In a thematic analysis, we identified four key themes related to program set-up and implementation; patient and community education and promotion; engaging patients and communities in screening; and general practice enhancement. Program roles were clear and understood, and the program received strong oversight and support. Practice staff felt supported and motivated. Information Technology was a challenge for many practices often requiring tailored assistance. Education provided by practices facilitated patient empowerment but practice staff noted difficulties engaging patients in screening. Practices were enhanced though strong leadership and teamwork and practice learning activities.

Conclusions

The tailored evidence-based quality improvement initiatives were considered effective in supporting general practices to increase their cancer screening. Key facilitators reported by participants included use of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, enhanced data entry and audit capacity, effective recall and reminder systems and maintaining staff motivation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01581-y.

Impact on healthcare resources of switch from fecal occult blood test to fecal immunochemical test within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program: a single-center study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In July 2019, the fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) replaced the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in England as the Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) screening tool. We aimed to assess the impact of this on healthcare resources at our BCSP center.

METHODS

Two 6-month periods were initially analyzed for stool sample return and positivity rates. A subsequent comparative analysis of patient screening episodes assessed utilization of specialist screening practitioner (SSP) time, endoscopy, histology, radiology, surgical, and oncology service usage.

RESULTS

A total of 42,234 patients received FOBT and 42,545 patients received FIT stool kits, with FIT showing higher return (61.8% vs 58.58%, FIT vs FOBT, P < .001) and sample positivity rates (2.41% vs 1.45%, FIT vs FOBT, P < .001). Four hundred patients commenced FOBT and 616 FIT screening episodes, a 54% increase. The FIT group had of a lower mean age (67.5 vs 69.5 years, FIT vs FOBT, P = .0001) with a lower nonattendance rate (.16% vs 1.5%, FIT vs FOBT, P = .01). With higher patient numbers, the FIT group required 69% more endoscopic procedures, 58% increased SSP time, 40% more radiologic tests, and 68% higher surgical procedures. FIT also led to a 109% increase in endoscopy-derived histology samples from an increase in the proportion of patients with polyps with FIT (54.8% vs 47.2%, P = .020) and a greater number of polyps per patient in whom polyps were found (3.00 vs 2.50 polyps, P = .017). This additional service burden equated to additional financial costs of approximately $558,000 per annum.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of FIT led to notable increases in SSP time, endoscopy procedures, radiology tests, surgical procedures, and histopathology services, resulting in considerable ongoing financial implications on the organization. Findings can be used to aid workforce and service planning in National Health Service sites delivering BCSP and countries that have already adopted or are considering FIT within their national screening programs.

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Patient Navigation Programs for Adults with Complex Needs: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Patient navigation is a model of care that aims to improve access to care by reducing the complexity of navigating health, education, and social services across the continuum of care and care settings. Little is known about the processes that facilitate or impede the implementation of patient navigation programs (PNPs). We conducted a scoping review to identify and summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the implementation and outcomes of existing implemented PNPs. We employed a 6-stage scoping review framework to identify and review eligible articles. Sixty-articles met the inclusion criteria (58 peer-reviewed and 2 grey literature). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research served as the theoretical framework during analysis to help extract factors relevant to implementation of navigator programs. Results of the scoping review are reported thematically. Influences on implementation were identified: (a) planning to ensure alignment with organizational need (b) funding (c) multidisciplinary engagement (d) establishing workflow (e) mechanisms for communication (f) stakeholders to encourage buy-in (g) appropriate caseload (h) in kind resources. PNPs improve the experiences of patients and families. The findings of this scoping review provides implementation considerations of PNPs across global care settings. Strategies for overcoming pragmatic and logistical issues must be developed for optimal implementation.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Inreach With or Without Mailed Outreach to Promote Hepatitis C Screening in a Difficult-to-Reach Patient Population

INTRODUCTION

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment can significantly reduce the risk of liver-related mortality; however, many patients remain unaware of their infection in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of inreach, with and without mailed outreach, to increase HCV screening and follow-up in a large, difficult-to-reach patient population.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial from August 2018 to May 2019 in a large safety-net health system. Patients born between 1945 and 1965 were randomly assigned (1:1) to inreach with an electronic health record reminder to providers (n = 6,195) or inreach plus mailed HCV screening outreach (n = 6,191) to complete HCV antibody screening. Outreach also included processes to promote HCV RNA testing among those with a positive HCV antibody and linkage to care among those with positive HCV RNA. The primary outcome was completion of HCV antibody testing within 3 months of randomization (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03706742).

RESULTS

We included 12,386 eligible patients (median age 60 years; 46.5% Hispanic, 33.0% Black, and 16.0% White). In intent-to-treat analyses, HCV screening completion was significantly higher among inreach-plus-outreach patients than inreach-alone patients at 3 months (14.6% vs 7.4%, P < 0.001) and 6 months (17.4% vs 9.8%, P < 0.001) after randomization. Among those who completed HCV screening within 6 months, a higher proportion of inreach-plus-outreach patients with positive antibody results completed RNA testing within 3 months than inreach-alone patients (81.1% vs 57.1%, respectively, P = 0.02); however, linkage to care within 3 months of HCV infection confirmation did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (48.1% vs 75.0%, respectively, P = 0.24).

DISCUSSION

Among difficult-to-reach patients, a combination of inreach and mailed outreach significantly increased HCV screening compared with inreach alone. However, HCV screening completion in both arms remained low, highlighting a need for more intensive interventions.

What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?

Screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality; however, this remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and adherence to colorectal cancer screening falls far short of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of 80%. Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. Outreach is the active dissemination of screening outside of the primary care setting, such as mailing fecal blood tests to individuals' homes. Navigation uses trained personnel to assist individuals through the screening process. Patient education may take the form of brochures, videos, or websites. Provider education can include feedback about screening rates of patient panels. Reminders to healthcare providers can be provided by dashboards of patients due for screening. Financial incentives provide monetary compensation to individuals when they complete screening tests, either as fixed payments or via a lottery. Individual preference for specific screening strategies has also been examined in several trials, with a choice of screening strategies yielding higher adherence than recommendation of a single strategy.

Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Digital health care offers an opportunity to scale and personalize cancer screening programs, such as mailed outreach for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, studies that describe the patient selection strategy and process for CRC screening are limited. Our objective was to evaluate implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening programs in large health care systems.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of 30 studies along with key informant surveys and interviews to describe programmatic implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening. PubMed and Embase were searched since inception through December 2018, and hand searches were performed of the retrieved reference lists but none were incorporated (n = 0). No language exclusions were applied.

RESULTS

Common criteria for outreach exclusion included: being up-to-date with routine CRC screening (n = 22), comorbidities (n = 20), and personal history (n = 22) or family history of cancer (n = 9). Key informant surveys and interviews were performed (n = 28) to understand data sources and practices for patient outreach selection, and found that 13 studies leveraged electronic medical care records, 10 studies leveraged a population registry (national, municipal, community, health), 4 studies required patient opt-in, and 1 study required primary care provider referral. Broad ranges in fecal immunochemical test completion were observed in community clinic (n = 8, 31.0-59.6%), integrated health system (n = 5, 21.2-82.7%), and national regional CRC screening programs (n = 17, 23.0-64.7%). Six studies used technical codes, and four studies required patient self-reporting from a questionnaire to participate.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides health systems with the diverse outreach practices and technical tools to support efforts to automate patient selection for CRC screening outreach.

When Should We Let Colorectal Cancer Screening Get Personal?

Although screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and related mortality, national CRC screening rates remain suboptimal. Identifying strategies to improve screening rates remains an area of intense focus, and previous literature supports an association between the perceived risk of CRC and a likelihood or intent to complete screening. However, risk estimation alone through the validated National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool does not improve screening uptake compared with general education. Future studies should couple risk estimation with patient navigation and decision support aids to build upon our existing armamentarium of effective interventions.

Application of Behavioral Economics Principles Improves Participation in Mailed Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although various interventions have improved screening rates, they often require abundant resources and can be difficult to implement. Social psychology and behavioral economics principles offer an opportunity for low-cost and easy-to-implement strategies but are less common in clinical settings.

METHODS:

We randomized 2,000 patients aged 50–75 years eligible for CRC screening to one of the 2 mailed interventions: a previously used text-based letter describing and offering fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and colonoscopy (usual care arm); or a letter leveraging social psychology and behavioral economics principles (e.g., implied scarcity and choice architecture), minimal text, and multiple images to offer FIT and colonoscopy (intervention arm). We compared total screening uptake, FIT uptake, and colonoscopy uptake at 1-month intervals in each group.

RESULTS:

There were 1,882 patients included in the final analysis. The mean age was 69.3 years, and baseline characteristics in the 2 groups were similar. Screening completion at 26 weeks was 19.5% in the usual care arm (16.3% FIT vs 3.2% colonoscopy, P < 0.01) and 24.1% in the intervention arm (22.1% FIT vs 2.0% colonoscopy, P < 0.01) (P = 0.02).

DISCUSSION:

Among primary care patients aged 50–75 years in an academic setting, mailed CRC outreach employing social psychology and behavioral economics principles led to a higher participation in CRC screening than usual care mailed outreach.

TRANSLATIONAL IMPACT:

Mailed interventions to increase CRC screening should incorporate social psychology and behavioral economics principles to improve participation.

Development of a multivariable prediction model to identify patients unlikely to complete a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT test in community clinics

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd leading cancer killer among men and women in the US. The Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) project aimed to increase CRC screening among patients in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) through a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program. However, rates of completion of the follow-up colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT remain low. We developed a multivariable prediction model using data available in the electronic health record to assess the probability of patients obtaining a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT test.

Methods

To assess the probability of obtaining a colonoscopy, we used Cox regression to develop a risk prediction model among a retrospective cohort of patients with an abnormal FIT result.

Results

Of 1596 patients with an abnormal FIT result, 556 (34.8%) had a recorded colonoscopy within 6 months. The model shows an adequate separation of patients across risk levels for non-adherence to follow-up colonoscopy (bootstrap-corrected C-statistic > 0.63). The refined model included 8 variables: age, race, insurance, GINI income inequality, long-term anticoagulant use, receipt of a flu vaccine in the past year, frequency of missed clinic appointments, and clinic site. The probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months varied across quintiles; patients in the lowest quintile had an estimated 18% chance, whereas patients in the top quintile had a greater than 55% chance of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Knowing who is unlikely to follow-up on an abnormal FIT test could help identify patients who need an early intervention aimed at completing a follow-up colonoscopy.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01742065) on December 5, 2012. The protocol is available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-05883-2.

What Is Organized Screening and What Is Its Value?

Most screening in the United States occurs in an opportunistic fashion, although organized screening occurs in some integrated health care systems. Organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening consists of an explicit screening policy, defined target population, implementation team, health care team for clinical care delivery, quality assurance infrastructure, and method for identifying cancer outcomes. Implementation of an organized screening program offers opportunities to systematically assess the success of the program and develop interventions to address identified gaps in an effort to optimize CRC outcomes. There is evidence of that organized screening is associated with improvements in screening participation and CRC mortality.

Optimal Colonoscopic Surveillance Interval After Normal Baseline Screening Colonoscopy

The optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval in the Chinese population is unclear. The present study aimed to assess the optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval after normal baseline screening colonoscopy to avoid overuse or underuse of colonoscopy. This retrospective study included individuals with normal baseline colonoscopy who had undergone at least 2 follow-up colonoscopy examinations at the Digestive Endoscopy Center of our hospital between 2000 and 2013. The risk factors for adenoma and the optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval were assessed. A total of 1,005 individuals (419 men; mean age, 49.34 ± 13.29 years) were included in the study. Of these, 169 individuals had adenomas at colonoscopic surveillance (mean, 1.32 ± 0.79 procedures). The mean adenoma diameter was 0.54 ± 0.38 cm, and the mean number of adenomas was 1.76 ± 1.29. The mean adenoma surveillance interval was 4.76 ± 2.89 years. The risk factors for adenoma identification were age more than 50 years and male gender. The optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval was 4.76 years according to an adenoma detection rate of 5%. The optimal colonoscopic surveillance interval is around 5 years for individuals with normal baseline colonoscopy. Age more than 50 years and male gender are risk factors for adenoma identification.

Making FIT Count: Maximizing Appropriate Use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains one of the most common and deadly malignancies despite advancements in screening, diagnostic capabilities, and treatment. The ability to detect and remove precancerous and cancerous lesions via screening has altered the epidemiology of the disease, decreasing incidence, mortality, and late-stage disease presentation. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a screening test that aims to detect human hemoglobin in the stool. FIT is the most common CRC screening modality worldwide and second most common in the United States. Its use in screening programs has been shown to increase screening uptake and improve CRC outcomes. However, FIT-based screening programs vary widely in quality and effectiveness. In health systems with high-quality FIT screening programs, only superior FIT formats are used, providers order FIT appropriately, annual patient participation is high, and diagnostic follow-up after an abnormal result is achieved in a timely manner. Proper utilization of FIT involves multiple steps beyond provider recommendation of the test. In this commentary, we aim to highlight ongoing challenges in FIT screening and suggest interventions to maximize FIT effectiveness. Through active engagement of patients and providers, health systems can use FIT to help optimize CRC screening rates and improve CRC outcomes.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy are the most commonly used strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. We aimed to compare their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in CRC screening in an average-risk population.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Risk ratio (RR) was used to evaluate the differences in detection rates of colorectal neoplasia between FIT and colonoscopy groups. A random-effects model was used to pool RRs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies were included. The participation rate in the FIT group was higher than that in the colonoscopy group (41.6% vs 21.9%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, FIT had a detection rate of CRC comparable with colonoscopy (RR, .73; 95% confidence interval, .37-1.42) and lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Most included cost-effectiveness studies showed that annual (13/15) or biennial (5/6) FIT was cost-saving (ICER < $0) or very cost-effective ($0 < ICER ≤ $25000/quality-adjusted life-year) compared with colonoscopy every 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT may be similar to 1-time colonoscopy in the detection rate of CRC, although it has lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than 1-time colonoscopy. Furthermore, annual or biennial FIT appears to be very cost-effective or cost-saving compared with colonoscopy every 10 years. These findings indicate, at least partly, that FIT is noninferior to colonoscopy in CRC screening in an average-risk population. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.

Yield and Practice Patterns of Surveillance Colonoscopy Among Older Adults: An Analysis of the GI Quality Improvement Consortium

OBJECTIVES

There is little guidance regarding when to stop surveillance colonoscopy in individuals with a history of adenomas or colorectal cancer (CRC). We evaluated both yield and recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy in a large cohort of older individuals undergoing colonoscopy, using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry.

METHODS

We analyzed the yield of colonoscopy in adults aged ≥75 years, comparing those who had an indication of surveillance as opposed to an indication of diagnostic or screening, stratified by 5-year age groups. Our primary outcome was CRC and advanced lesions. We also evaluated recommended follow-up intervals by age and findings.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2017, 376,686 colonoscopies were performed by 3,976 endoscopists at 628 sites, of which 43.2% were for surveillance. Detection of CRC among surveillance patients increased with age from 0.51% (age 75-79 years) to 1.8% (age ≥ 90 years); however, these risks were lower when compared with both the diagnostic and screening for the same age band (P < 0.0001). Yield of advanced lesions also increased by every 5-year interval of age across all groups by indication. Even at the most advanced ages and in those with nonadvanced findings, only a minority of patients were recommended for no further colonoscopy. For example, in patients aged 90 years and older with only low risk findings, 62.9% were recommended to repeat colonoscopy.

DISCUSSION

Surveillance colonoscopy is frequently recommended at advanced ages even when recent findings may be clinically insignificant. Further work is needed to develop guidelines to inform best practice around when to stop surveillance in older adults.