Gastroenterologists utilize the referral for EGD to enhance colon cancer screening more effectively than primary care physicians

Colon cancer screening in women

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women. Colorectal cancer is a preventable disease with accepted screening modalities that have been proven to save lives. As women are more likely than men to develop right-sided colon cancers, colonoscopy is the preferred screening test in women. Currently, women are less likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening than men. Frank discussions addressing the fear or embarrassment of endoscopic screening are important in helping women overcome these barriers. Enhanced education of both practitioners and patients targeted to improve colorectal cancer screening adherence will improve early diagnosis and patient survival.

Social disparities in the use of colonoscopy by primary care physicians in Ontario

Background

It is unclear if all persons in Ontario have equal access to colonoscopy. This research was designed to describe long-term trends in the use of colonoscopy by primary care physicians (PCPs) in Ontario, and to determine whether PCP characteristics influence the use of colonoscopy.

Methods

We conducted a population-based retrospective study of PCPs in Ontario between the years 1996-2005. Using administrative data we identified a screen-eligible group of patients aged 50-74 years in Ontario. These patients were linked to the PCP who provided the most continuous care to them during each year. We determined the use of any colonoscopy among these patients. We calculated the rate of colonoscopy for each PCP as the number of patients undergoing colonoscopies per 100 screen eligible patients. Negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with the rate of colonoscopy, using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of patients within PCPs.

Results

Between 7,955 and 8,419 PCPs in Ontario per year (median age 43 years) had at least 10 eligible patients in their practices. The use of colonoscopy by PCPs increased sharply in Ontario during the study period, from a median rate of 1.51 [inter quartile range (IQR) 0.57-2.62] per 100 screen eligible patients in 1996 to 4.71 (IQR 2.70-7.53) in 2005. There was substantial variation between PCPs in their use of colonoscopy. PCPs who were Canadian medical graduates and with more years of experience were more likely to use colonoscopy after adjusting for their patient characteristics. PCPs were more likely to use colonoscopy if their patient populations were predominantly women, older, had more illnesses, and if their patients resided in less marginalized neighborhoods (lower unemployment, fewer immigrants, higher income, higher education, and higher English/French fluency).

Conclusions

There is substantial variation in the use of colonoscopy by PCPs, and this variation has increased as the overall use of colonoscopy increased over time. PCPs whose patients were more marginalized were less likely to use colonoscopy, suggesting that there are inequities in access.

Associations of physician supplies with colon cancer care in Ontario and California, 1996 to 2006

BACKGROUND

This study examined the differential effects of physician supplies on colon cancer care in Ontario and California. The associations of physician supplies with colon cancer stage at diagnosis, receipt of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, and 5-year survival were observed within each country and compared between-country.

METHODS

Random samples of Ontario and California cancer registries provided 2,461 and 2,200 colon cancer cases that were diagnosed between 1996 and 2000, and followed until 2006. Both registries included data on the stage of disease at the time of diagnosis, receipt of cancer-directed surgery, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival. Census tract-level data on low-income prevalence were, respectively, taken from 2001 and 2000 Canadian and United States population censuses. County-level primary care physician and gastroenterologist densities were computed for the same years.

RESULTS

Significant income-adjusted, gastroenterologist density threshold effects (2.0 or more vs. less than 2.0 per 100,000 inhabitants) were observed for early diagnosis (OR = 1.57) and 5-year survival (OR = 1.63) in Ontario, but not in California. Significant incremental threshold effects of primary care physician densities on chemotherapy receipt (8.0 and 9.0 or more per 10,000 inhabitants, respective ORs of 1.79 and 2.37) were also only observed in Ontario.

CONCLUSIONS

These colon cancer care findings support the theory that while personal economic resources are more predictive in America, community-level resources such as physician supplies are more predictive of health care access and effectiveness in Canada.

Colorectal cancer screening practices among obstetrician/gynecologists and nurse practitioners

OBJECTIVE

Obstetrician/gynecologists (Ob/Gyn) and nurse practitioners (NP) are essential providers of primary and preventive care for their female patients. Therefore, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening should be part of their routine preventive practices. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the CRC screening practices of these providers.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was mailed to a national sample of 1130 Ob/Gyns and NPs to assess providers' demographics, current CRC screening practices, and familiarity with CRC guidelines.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-six providers (29.7%) returned our survey (54% Ob/Gyns and 46% NPs). Three fourths of providers routinely performed screening for CRC, compared with 95% for breast and cervical cancer. Routine CRC screening was more common among Ob/Gyns (87.2%) than NPs (61.7%) (p < 0.001). Slightly over half of providers correctly identified the recommended age to begin CRC screening for the average-risk patient, with no significant difference between provider types. Overall, Ob/Gyns scored higher than NPs on a series of questions assessing CRC screening (p < 0.03). Several provider factors were found to be significantly associated with screening practices, including practicing >10 years (p < 0.01), practicing in a multispecialty group (2.62 times more likely), and having an older patient population (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ob/Gyns and NPs underuse CRC screening compared with breast and cervical cancer screening and lack knowledge about appropriate use of CRC screening modalities. Opportunities to further educate Ob/Gyns and NPs should be sought to improve compliance with current CRC screening guidelines.