Prioritisation of colonoscopy services in colorectal cancer screening programmes to minimise impact of COVID-19 pandemic on predicted cancer burden: A comparative modelling study

Faecal immunochemical tests can improve colonoscopy triage in patients with iron deficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to triage patients with iron deficiency (ID) for colonoscopy due to suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve distribution of colonoscopic resources. We reviewed the diagnostic performance of FIT for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia, including CRC and advanced pre-cancerous neoplasia (APCN), in patients with ID, with or without anaemia.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of three databases for studies comprising of patients with ID, with or without anaemia, completing a quantitative FIT within six months prior to colonoscopy, where test performance was compared against the reference standard colonoscopy. Random effects meta-analyses determined the diagnostic performance of FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included on a total of n=1761 patients with ID, reporting FIT positivity thresholds between 4-150 µg haemoglobin/g faeces. Only one study included a non-anaemic ID (NAID) cohort. FIT detected CRC and APCN in ID patients with 90.7 % and 49.3 % sensitivity, and 81.0 % and 82.4 % specificity, respectively. FIT was 88.0 % sensitive and 83.4 % specific for CRC in patients with ID anaemia at a FIT positivity threshold of 10 µg haemoglobin/g faeces.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT shows high sensitivity for advanced colorectal neoplasia and may be used to triage those with ID anaemia where colonoscopic resources are limited, enabling those at higher risk of CRC to be prioritised for colonoscopy. There is a need for further research investigating the diagnostic performance of FIT in NAID patients.

Maximizing scarce colonoscopy resources: the crucial role of stool-based tests

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems, including federally qualified health centers, experienced disruptions in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. National organizations called for greater use of at-home stool-based testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results to limit (in-person) colonoscopy exams to people with acute symptoms or who were high risk. This stool-test-first strategy may also be useful for adults with low-risk adenomas who are due for surveillance colonoscopy. We argue that colonoscopy is overused as a first-line screening method in low- and average-risk adults and as a surveillance tool among adults with small adenomas. Yet, simultaneously, many people do not receive much-needed colonoscopies. Delivering the right screening tests at intervals that reduce the risk of CRC, while minimizing patient inconvenience and procedural risks, can strengthen health-care systems. Risk stratification could improve efficiency of CRC screening, but because models that adequately predict risk are years away from clinical use, we need to optimize use of currently available technology-that is, low-cost fecal testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need to adapt to resource constraints around colonoscopies and showed that increased use of stool-based testing was possible. Learning how to adapt to such constraints without sacrificing patients' health, particularly for patients who receive care at federally qualified health centers, should be a priority for CRC prevention research.

COVID-related disruptions to colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment could increase cancer Burden in Australia and Canada: A modelling study

COVID-19 disrupted cancer control worldwide, impacting preventative screening, diagnoses, and treatment services. This modelling study estimates the impact of disruptions on colorectal cancer cases and deaths in Canada and Australia, informed by data on screening, diagnosis, and treatment procedures. Modelling was used to estimate short- and long-term effects on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, including ongoing impact of patient backlogs. A hypothetical mitigation strategy was simulated, with diagnostic and treatment capacities increased by 5% from 2022 to address backlogs. Colorectal cancer screening dropped by 40% in Canada and 6.3% in Australia in 2020. Significant decreases to diagnostic and treatment procedures were also observed in Australia and Canada, which were estimated to lead to additional patient wait times. These changes would lead to an estimated increase of 255 colorectal cancer cases and 1,820 colorectal cancer deaths in Canada and 234 cases and 1,186 deaths in Australia over 2020-2030; a 1.9% and 2.4% increase in mortality, respectively, vs a scenario with no screening disruption or diagnostic/treatment delays. Diagnostic and treatment capacity mitigation would avert 789 and 350 deaths in Canada and Australia, respectively. COVID-related disruptions had a significant impact on colorectal cancer screening, diagnostic, and treatment procedures in Canada and Australia. Modelling demonstrates that downstream effects on disease burden could be substantial. However, backlogs can be managed and deaths averted with even small increases to diagnostic and treatment capacity. Careful management of resources can improve patient outcomes after any temporary disruption, and these results can inform targeted approaches early detection of cancers.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in colorectal cancer diagnosis and presentation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a decrease in the colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence, due to the disruption of screening programmes and a downscaling of endoscopic activity. The endpoint of this study is to evaluate if the pandemic has led to a change in CRC diagnostic rate and presentation in our population.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective study of all public hospitals of the Aragon region, attending a population of 1,329,391 inhabitants. We have analyzed all CRC cases detected and endoscopic units workload the year before the pandemic onset (1 March 2019-14 March 2020) and the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (15 March 2020-28 February 2021).

RESULTS

The diagnosis of CRC cases dropped a 38.9% (888 pre-pandemic vs 542 pandemic cases). Also, there were 30.3% less colonoscopies performed (24,860 vs 17,337). During the pandemic, CRC cases were diagnosed in older patients (72.4±12.2 vs 71.2±12.1 years, p=0.021), and had more frequently severe complications at diagnosis (14.6% vs 10.4%, p=0.019). Moreover, most CRC cases were diagnosed in symptomatic patients (81.4%). No significant difference was found in CRC stage at diagnosis, although stage IV was more frequent (20.1% vs 16.1%). Most hospitals reported a lower workload of endoscopic activity.

CONCLUSION

CRC diagnostic rate was lower after the onset of the pandemic. CRC was diagnosed in older patients and was more frequently associated with complications. After the onset of the pandemic, the endoscopic units did not reach the workload performed previously.

Scoping review of modelling studies assessing the impact of disruptions to essential health services during COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing the indirect impact of COVID-19 using mathematical models have increased in recent years. This scoping review aims to identify modelling studies assessing the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services caused by COVID-19 and to summarise the characteristics of disruption and the models used to assess the disruptions.

METHODS

Eligible studies were included if they used any models to assess the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on any health services. Articles published from January 2020 to December 2022 were identified from PubMed, Embase and CINAHL, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, modelling and healthcare disruptions. Two reviewers independently extracted the data in four domains. A descriptive analysis of the included studies was performed under the format of a narrative report.

RESULTS

This scoping review has identified a total of 52 modelling studies that employed several models (n=116) to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services. The majority of the models were simulation models (n=86; 74.1%). Studies covered a wide range of health conditions from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases. COVID-19 has been reported to disrupt supply of health services, demand for health services and social change affecting factors that influence health. The most common outcomes reported in the studies were clinical outcomes such as mortality and morbidity. Twenty-five studies modelled various mitigation strategies; maintaining critical services by ensuring resources and access to services are found to be a priority for reducing the overall impact.

CONCLUSION

A number of models were used to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services on various outcomes. There is a need for collaboration among stakeholders to enhance the usefulness of any modelling. Future studies should consider disparity issues for more comprehensive findings that could ultimately facilitate policy decision-making to maximise benefits to all.

Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative

BACKGROUND

Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative.

METHODS

We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation.

RESULTS

ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice.