Factors Associated With the Overuse of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Medical Malpractice and Diagnostic Radiology: Challenges and Opportunities

Medicolegal challenges in radiology are broad and impact both radiologists and patients. Radiologists may be affected directly by malpractice litigation or indirectly due to defensive imaging ordering practices. Patients also could be harmed physically, emotionally, or financially by unnecessary tests or procedures. As technology advances, the incorporation of artificial intelligence into medicine will bring with it new medicolegal challenges and opportunities. This article reviews the current and emerging direct and indirect effects of medical malpractice on radiologists and summarizes evidence-based solutions.

Impacts of COVID-19 on Appropriate Use of Screening Colonoscopy in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System

BACKGROUND

Decreasing low-value colonoscopy is critical to optimizing access for high-need patients, particularly in resource-constrained environments such as those created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that rates of screening colonoscopy overuse would decline during COVID compared to pre-COVID due to enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of constrained access.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize impacts of COVID-19 on screening colonoscopy overuse DESIGN: Retrospective national cohort study using Veterans Health Administration administrative data PARTICIPANTS: Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy in Q4 2019 (pre-COVID) and Q4 2020 (COVID) at 109 endoscopy facilities MAIN MEASURES: Rates of screening colonoscopy overuse KEY RESULTS: 18,376 screening colonoscopies were performed pre-COVID, 19% (3,641) of which met overuse criteria. While only 9,360 screening colonoscopies were performed in Q4 2020, 25% met overuse criteria. Overall change in median facility-level overuse during COVID compared to pre-COVID was 6% (95%CI 5%-7%), with significant variability across facilities (IQR: 2%-11%). Of colonoscopies meeting overuse criteria, the top reason for overuse in both periods was screening colonoscopy performed <9 years after previous screening procedure (55% pre-COVID, 49% during COVID). The largest shifts in overuse category were in screening procedures performed <9 years after prior screening colonoscopy (-6% decline COVID vs. pre-COVID) and screening procedures performed in patients below average-risk screening age (i.e., age <40 (5% increase COVID compared to pre-COVID), age 40-44 (4% increase COVID vs. pre-COVID)). Within facility performance was stable over time; 83/109 facilities changed their performance by <=1 quartile during COVID compared to pre-COVID.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite pandemic-related resource constraints and enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of COVID-related backlogs, screening colonoscopy overuse rates remained roughly stable during COVID compared to pre-COVID, with continued variability across facilities. These data highlight the need for systematic and concerted efforts to address overuse, even in the face of strong external motivating factors.

Characteristics Associated with Low-Value Cancer Screening Among Office-Based Physician Visits by Older Adults in the USA

BACKGROUND

After a certain age, cancer screening may expose older adults to unnecessary harms with limited benefits and represent inefficient use of health care resources.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the frequency of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among adults older than US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age thresholds at which screening is no longer considered routine and to identify physician and patient factors associated with low-value cancer screening.

DESIGN

Observational study using pooled cross-sectional data (2011-2016) from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative probability sample of US office-based physician visits.

PARTICIPANTS

Analyses for cervical and breast cancer screening were limited to visits by women over age 65 (N=37,818) and ages 75 and over (N=19,451), respectively. Analyses for colorectal cancer screening were limited to visits by patients over age 75 (N=31,543).

MAIN MEASURES

Cancer screening procedures were coded as low value using USPSTF age thresholds.

KEY RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, an estimated 509, 507, and 273 thousand potentially low-value Pap smears, mammograms, and colonoscopies/sigmoidoscopies, respectively, were ordered annually. Low-valuecervical cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits with older (vs. younger) patients. Compared to visits by non-HispanicWhite women, low-valuecervical and breast cancer screening was less likely to occur for visits by women whose race/ethnicitywas something other than non-HispanicWhite, non-HispanicBlack, or Hispanic. Obstetrician/gynecologistswere more likely to order low-valuePap smears and mammograms compared to family/generalpractice physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Thousands of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screenings at ages beyond routine guideline thresholds occur each year in the USA. Further research is needed to understand whether this pattern represents clinical inertia and resistance to de-adoption of previous screening practices, or whether physicians and/or patients perceive a higher value in these tests than that endorsed by experts writing evidence-based guidelines.

Primary care clinicians' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests for older adults

•

How clinicians use stool tests for older adults (65+) is not well understood.

•

Preferred in patients who are sicker and for whom guidelines do not recommend.

•

Clinicians must better individualize the use of colorectal tests in older adults.

Colonoscopy is an effective screening test for colorectal cancer but is associated with significant risks and burdens, especially in older adults. Stool tests, which are more convenient, more accessible, and less invasive, can be important tools to improve screening. How clinicians make decisions about colonoscopy versus stool tests in older patients is not well-understood.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians throughout Maryland in 2018–2019 to examine how clinicians considered the use of stool tests for colorectal cancer screening in their older patients. Thirty clinicians from 21 clinics participated. The mean clinician age was 48.2 years. The majority were physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes were identified using qualitative content analysis: (1) Stool test equivalency - although many clinicians still considered colonoscopy as the test of choice, some clinicians considered stool tests equivalent options for screening. (2) Reasons for recommending stool tests – clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker/older patients or patients who declined colonoscopy. (3) Stool test overuse – some clinicians reported recommending stool tests for patients for whom guidelines do not recommend any screening. (4) Barriers to use – perceived barriers to using stool tests included lack of familiarity, un-returned stool test kits, concern for accuracy, and concern about cost.

In summary, clinicians reported preferentially using stool tests in sicker and older patients and mentioned examples of potential overuse. Additional studies are needed on how to better individualize the use of different colorectal screening tests in older patients.

Induced Demand in Cancer Diagnosis

Context: Supplier-induced demand (SID) is an essential concept in health economics related to the diagnosis of different types of cancer and related expenditures. The current review considered studies on induced demand in cancer diagnosis. Evidence Acquisition: This systematic review investigated the induced diagnosis of cancer in four well-known databases (Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, and PubMed) from January 1980 to July 2019 using the keywords “induced demand,” “cancer,” and “diagnosis”. References of the studies found through the original search were also considered for analysis. Results: No studies focused on SID in cancer diagnosis could be found, thus indicating a significant deficiency in the discussion of SID in cancer diagnosis studies. Therefore, the terms most relevant to the concept of SID in cancer diagnosis were examined. Finally, 24 factors were categorized into three groups: economic, socio-cultural, and structural. The majority of evidence for the probability of SID in cancer diagnosis is related to overdiagnosis or early diagnosis caused by unnecessary screening (57.14% of reviewed articles) and the neglect of clinical practice guidelines (42.8% of reviewed articles), mainly by diagnostic imaging. Conclusions: Research focused explicitly on SID in cancer diagnosis is needed. Moreover, economic, social, and structural reforms related to the factors that connect overuse, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary services to cancer diagnosis are required to control costs and harm and provide the best benefits to patients.