How to Ensure Patient Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in Your Practice

Low Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in First-Degree Relatives of Our Patients: Are We Failing Them?

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend screening those with a family history of early-onset colorectal cancer at age 40 years or 10 years before the age of their relative's diagnosis. Currently, there is no literature reporting the screening rate in these individuals, and no protocols are in place to identify and target this population for screening awareness.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess adherence to current screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of patients with early-onset colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective and qualitative study involving a telephone survey where patients were asked about relative's screening status and barriers to screening.

SETTINGS

Two community-based institutions between January 2018 and December 2021.

PATIENTS

Individuals diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer who had undergone surgery at our institutions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of screening in first-degree relatives of our patients with early-onset colorectal cancer. Other factors measured included demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and screening barriers.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were identified. The survey response rate was 66.6% (n = 24). A total of 88 first-degree relatives who met the screening criteria resulted in 67.1% of patients (n = 59) having a known screening status. Of the 59 patients with known screening status, only 44% (n = 26) had undergone screening. Patients of Black race, having stage III/IV disease, having Medicare/Medicaid insurance, and living within Baltimore City County were more likely to have family members with unknown or no screening. Lack of insurance coverage was the most common barrier, which was noted in 12.5% of patients (n = 3), whereas 54.1% of patients (n = 13) reported no barriers to screening.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

Most first-degree relatives of patients diagnosed with early-onset colorectal cancer do not undergo colorectal cancer screening. This could be attributed to the lack of protocols that could guarantee these individuals are informed of their elevated risk and the different options available for screening. Furthermore, our study suggests that racial and socioeconomic disparities exist among high-risk patients who should pursue screening. See Video Abstract .

BAJAS TASAS DE DETECCIN DEL CNCER COLORRECTAL EN LOS FAMILIARES DE PRIMER GRADO DE NUESTROS PACIENTES LES ESTAMOS FALLANDO

ANTECEDENTES:Las directrices recomiendan realizar pruebas de detección a las personas con antecedentes familiares de cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana a los 40 años o 10 años antes de la edad del diagnóstico de su familiar. Actualmente, no hay literatura que informe la tasa de detección en estos individuos y no existen protocolos para identificar y dirigirse a esta población para concientizar sobre la detección.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el cumplimiento de las pautas de detección actuales entre los FDR de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo y cualitativo que incluyó una encuesta telefónica en la que se preguntó a los pacientes sobre el estado de detección de sus familiares y las barreras para la detección.AJUSTES:Dos instituciones comunitarias entre enero de 2018 y diciembre de 2021.PACIENTES:Personas diagnosticadas con cáncer colorrectal de inicio temprano que habían sido intervenidas quirúrgicamente en nuestras instituciones.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tasa de detección en familiares de primer grado de nuestros pacientes con cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana. Otros factores medidos incluyeron datos demográficos, características clínico-patológicas y barreras de detección.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron treinta y seis pacientes. La tasa de respuesta a la encuesta fue del 66,6% (n = 24). Resultaron un total de 88 familiares de primer grado que cumplieron con los criterios para la detección, y el 67,1% (n = 59) tenía un estado de detección conocido. De los 59 con estado de detección conocido, se informó que solo el 44% (n = 26) se había sometido a pruebas de detección. Los pacientes de raza afroamericana, enfermedad en etapa III/IV, Medicare/Medicaid y que vivían dentro del condado de la ciudad de Baltimore tenían más probabilidades de tener familiares con pruebas de detección desconocidas o sin ellas. La falta de cobertura de seguro fue la barrera más común observada por el 12,5% (n = 3); mientras que el 54,1% (n = 13) no informó ninguna barrera para el cribado.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los familiares de primer grado de pacientes diagnosticados con cáncer colorrectal de aparición temprana no se someten a pruebas de detección de cáncer colorrectal. Esto podría atribuirse a la falta de protocolos que garanticen que estas personas estén informadas sobre su elevado riesgo y las diferentes opciones disponibles para el cribado. Además, nuestro estudio sugiere que existen disparidades raciales y socioeconómicas entre los pacientes de alto riesgo que deberían someterse a pruebas de detección. (Traducción-Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

The frequency of colorectal lesions in the first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal lesions among PERSIAN Guilan Cohort Study population (PGCS)

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the frequency of colorectal lesions in the first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal lesions among the Prospective Epidemiological Research Studies in Iran (PERSIAN )Guilan Cohort Study (PGCS) population.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 162 first-degree relatives with a history of colorectal lesions were randomly selected from 52 participants in PGCS. All subjects underwent total colonoscopy by a gastroenterologist, and a pathologist evaluated colorectal biopsies. Also, individuals' demographic information, clinical data, and dietary habits were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 56.55 ± 7.04. Of 86 colon polyps, 52 neoplastic and 34 non-neoplastic polyps were observed in 56 patients (34.6%). Individuals with age > 60 years had 3.29-fold increased odds of developing colorectal polyps (OR = 3.29, 95% CI: 1.13-9.56, P = 0.029). The smokers were 2.73 times more susceptible to developing colorectal polyps than non-smokers (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.24-6.02, P = 0.013). Moreover, consumption of vegetables more than three times per day was associated with decreased OR of colorectal polyp development (OR = 0.43, CI: 0.19-0.98, P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the high prevalence of neoplastic colorectal polyps among the first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal lesions, early screening is recommended for individuals with a family history of colorectal lesions.

Patients Prioritize a Low-volume Bowel Preparation in Colitis-associated Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergo surveillance colonoscopies at fixed intervals to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Taking patients' preferences for determining surveillance strategies into account could improve adherence and patient satisfaction. This study aimed to determine patient preferences for CRC surveillance in IBD.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based, multicenter, discrete choice experiment among adult IBD patients with an indication for surveillance. Individuals were repeatedly asked to choose between 3 hypothetical surveillance scenarios. The choice tasks were based on bowel preparation (0.3-4 L), CRC risk reduction (8% to 1%-6%), and interval (1-10 years). Attribute importance scores, trade-offs, and willingness to participate were calculated using a multinomial logit model. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar preferences.

RESULTS

In total, 310 of 386 sent out questionnaires were completed and included in the study. Bowel preparation was prioritized (attribute importance score 40.5%) over surveillance interval and CRC risk reduction (31.1% and 28.4%, respectively). Maximal CRC risk reduction, low-volume bowel preparation (0.3 L laxative with 2 L clear liquid) with 2-year surveillance was the most preferred combination. Three subgroups were identified: a "surveillance avoidant," "CRC risk avoidant," and "surveillance preferring" groups. Membership was correlated with age, educational level, perceived CRC risk, the burden of bowel preparation, and colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Inflammatory bowel disease patients consider bowel preparation as the most important element in acceptance of CRC surveillance. Heterogeneity in preferences was explained by 3 latent subgroups. These findings may help to develop an individualized endoscopic surveillance strategy in IBD patients.

An Electronic Questionnaire to Survey Colorectal Cancer Screening Status and Identify High-Risk Cohorts in Large Health Care Organizations

Though improved screening practices have reduced the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates continue to be suboptimal. This is especially true of high-risk individuals, who are difficult for clinicians to identify during a typical health care encounter. The authors developed an electronic patient questionnaire that determined an individual's CRC screening status and identified high-risk individuals. The questionnaire was administered to employees through the Department of Human Resources. The response rate was 44.7%; 81.2% of respondents aged ≥50 years were up-to-date on CRC screening; 878 high-risk individuals were identified, 77.7% of whom were up-to-date on CRC screening. However, among high-risk individuals aged 40 to 49 years, only 45.8% reported up-to-date CRC screening. The questionnaire was effective in measuring CRC screening rates and identifying high-risk individuals. Dissemination by the Department of Human Resources was novel, effective, and was not dependent on a health care encounter to assess screening or high-risk status.

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.

Proven Strategies for Increasing Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented or detected early through screening and surveillance, barriers that lower adherence to screening significantly limit its effectiveness. Therefore, implementation of interventions that address and overcome adherence barriers is critical to efforts to decrease morbidity and mortality from CRC. This article reviews the current available evidence about interventions to increase adherence to CRC screening.

A survey on colonoscopy shows poor understanding of its protective value and widespread misconceptions across Europe

Background

Colonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence.

Study aim

We conducted an online survey of the public in five European Union countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK), with the aim of understanding public knowledge of, perceptions of, and attitudes towards, colonoscopy and bowel preparation, amongst colonoscopy-naïve respondents. Attitudes towards colonoscopy were also gathered from colonoscopy-experienced patients.

Methods

Survey answers were gathered from 2,500 colonoscopy-naïve respondents and 500 colonoscopy-experienced patients, divided equally between countries.

Results

Across Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation.

Discussion

There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques.

Conclusion

Europeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance.

Afterthoughts on colonoscopy. Was it that bad?

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer is among the top three most common cancers globally. In order to reduce the health burden, it is important to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening by understanding the barriers and facilitators encountered. There are numerous reports in the literature on the views of the general public on cancer screening. However, the experiences of colonoscopy patients are not as well studied. This paper maps their perceptions.

METHODS

Keyword searches for terms such as 'colorectal', 'colonoscopy' and 'qualitative' were conducted on 3 December 2019 in five databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Qualitative articles that quoted colonoscopy-experienced patients with no prior history of colorectal cancer were included for the thematic analysis. The systematic review was then synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

The major themes were distilled into three categories: pre-procedure, during and post-procedure. The factors identified in the pre-procedure phase include the troublesome bowel preparation, poor quality of information provided and the dynamics within a support network. Perceptions of pain, emotional discomfort and the role of providers mark the experience during the procedure. The receipt of results, opportunities given for discussion and finances relating to colonoscopy are important post-procedure events.

CONCLUSION

Understanding colorectal cancer screening behaviour is fundamental for healthcare providers and authorities to develop system and personal level changes for the improvement of colorectal cancer screening services. The key areas include patient comfort, the use of clearer instructional aids and graphics, establishing good patient rapport, and the availability of individualized options for sedation and the procedure.

Colorectal cancer outcomes after screening with the multi-target stool DNA assay: protocol for a large-scale, prospective cohort study (the Voyage study)

Introduction

Population-level screening has been shown to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Unfortunately, adherence to screening recommendations among eligible US adults remains below national goals. A relatively new non-invasive screening modality, the Food and Drug Administration-approved multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) assay (commercialised as Cologuard), which combines the detection of haemoglobin and DNA abnormalities, has been completed by more than 3 million individuals. Given mt-sDNA's recent availability, the effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening with respect to CRC incidence and mortality reduction has not yet been established.

Methods and analysis

Through an academic-industry collaboration, a prospective cohort study (Voyage) was designed with an initial enrolment target of 150 000 individuals with mt-sDNA ordered by their healthcare provider for CRC screening. Consented participants will be asked to complete a baseline questionnaire to collect sociodemographic and health information. Additional questionnaires will be provided after 1 year, and every 3 years thereafter, to collect data regarding CRC screening follow-up in order to estimate rates of CRC incidence and other health outcomes. Linkage to the National Death Index will be used to estimate mortality rates.

Ethics and dissemination

The Voyage study will be conducted in accordance with international guidelines and local regulatory requirements and laws. Data will be stored and retained at Mayo Clinic. Only limited data elements required for research purposes will be transmitted between Mayo Clinic and Exact Sciences Laboratories. Results of the Voyage study will be disseminated through scientific presentations and publications.

Trial registration number

NCT04124406.

Clinical Factors Associated with Adherence to the Follow-Up Examination after Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test in National Colorectal Cancer Screening

Background: The compliance with the follow-up examination after a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is lower than expected. We aimed to evaluate the adherence rate to the follow-up examination in patients with a positive FOBT and to identify the clinical factors associated with this adherence.

METHODS

The study population comprised adults aged ≥50 years who participated in the National Cancer Screening Program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2013. Compliance was defined as undergoing follow-up examination within 1 year of a positive FOBT.

RESULTS

From 214,131 individuals with a positive FOBT, 120,911 (56.5%) were in the compliance group and 93,220 (43.5%) were in the non-compliance group. On multivariate analysis, good compliance was associated with men (odds ratio (OR) = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.09-1.15)), younger ages (70-79 years, OR = 2.19 (2.09-2.31); 60-69 years, OR = 3.29 (3.13-3.46); 50-59 years, OR = 3.57 (3.39-3.75) vs. >80 years), previous experience of CRC screening (a negative FOBT, OR = 1.18 (1.15-1.21); a positive FOBT, OR = 2.42 (2.31-2.54)), absent previous experience of colonoscopy or barium enema (OR = 2.06 (1.99-2.13)), higher economic income (quartile, 75%, OR = 1.14 (1.11-1.17); 100%, OR = 1.22 (1.19-1.25)), current smokers (OR = 1.12 (1.09-1.15)), alcohol intake (OR = 1.03 (1.01-1.05)), active physical activity (≥3 times/week, OR = 1.13 (1.11-1.15)), depression (OR = 1.11 (1.08-1.14)), and present comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index, ≥1).

CONCLUSION

This study identified clinical factors, namely, male, younger ages, prior experience of fecal test, absent history of colonoscopy or double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) within 5 years, and high socioeconomic status to be associated with good adherence to the follow-up examination after a positive FOBT.