Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process

Advancing Colorectal Cancer Detection With Blood-Based Tests: Qualitative Study and Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Population Preferences

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most deadly form of cancer, inducing an estimated 1.9 million incidence cases and 0.9 million deaths worldwide in 2020. Despite the availability of screening tests, their uptake remains suboptimal. However, blood-based tests that look for signs of cancer-specific markers in the body are increasingly available as an alternative for more invasive tests for cancer. Compared with existing tests, the benefits of blood-based tests for CRC include not needing pretest preparation, stool handling, and dietary or medication restrictions.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the population's preferences for CRC screening tests, with a focus on blood-based tests, and investigate the factors influencing test uptake.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods approach, combining semistructured interviews and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify salient attributes for CRC screening tests. These attributes informed the design of the DCE survey. The DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit and mixed-mixed multinomial logit models.

RESULTS

Qualitative findings from 30 participants revealed that participants preferred blood-based tests due to their perceived low risk, minimal pain, and ease of sample collection. However, concerns about the test's lower accuracy were also expressed. The DCE survey was completed by 1189 participants. In the mixed logit model, participants demonstrated a stronger preference for blood-based tests over a 2-day stool-based test. The mixed-mixed multinomial logit model identified 2 classes, strong supporters and weak supporters, for CRC screening. Weak supporters, but not strong supporters, had a higher preference for blood-based tests. Women, ethnic Chinese, and people aged 40 to 60 years were more likely to be weak supporters. Both models highlighted the high influence of cost and test sensitivity on participants' preferences. Transitioning from a 2-day stool-based test to a blood-based test, assuming a national screening program at a base price of Singapore $5 (US $3.75), was estimated to have the potential to increase the relative uptake by 5.9% (95% CI 3.6%-8.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings contribute to our understanding of CRC screening preferences and provide insights into the factors driving test uptake. This study highlights the perceived advantages of blood-based tests and identifies areas of concern regarding their accuracy. Further research is needed to determine the actual increase in uptake rate when blood-based tests are made available.

Multi-criteria decision analysis method for differential diagnosis of tropical febrile diseases

This paper employs the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to enhance the accuracy of differential diagnosis for febrile diseases, particularly prevalent in tropical regions where misdiagnosis may have severe consequences. The migration of health workers from developing countries has resulted in frontline health workers (FHWs) using inadequate protocols for the diagnosis of complex health conditions. The study introduces an innovative AHP-based Medical Decision Support System (MDSS) incorporating disease risk factors derived from physicians' experiential knowledge to address this challenge. The system's aggregate diagnostic factor index determines the likelihood of febrile illnesses. Compared to existing literature, AHP models with risk factors demonstrate superior prediction accuracy, closely aligning with physicians' suspected diagnoses. The model's accuracy ranges from 85.4% to 96.9% for various diseases, surpassing physicians' predictions for Lassa, Dengue, and Yellow Fevers. The MDSS is recommended for use by FHWs in communities lacking medical experts, facilitating timely and precise diagnoses, efficient application of diagnostic test kits, and reducing overhead expenses for administrators.

Patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of a combined blood and faecal immunochemical test for excluding colorectal cancer diagnosis in primary care

OBJECTIVES

To explore the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals on Raman-faecal immunochemical test (FIT) as an alternative test for colorectal cancer exclusion in primary care.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews within a feasibility study.

SETTING

Patients presenting to primary care with colorectal symptoms and healthcare professionals working in primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 23 patients and 12 healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Patient participants were asked to complete a novel combined Raman-FIT test before being seen in secondary care. This study sought their opinions about the test. We also sought the views of healthcare professionals.

FINDINGS

Patients and healthcare professionals agreed that Raman-FIT was a suitable test to be given in primary care. It aligned with routine practice and was a simple test for most patients to complete.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are willing and able to complete the Raman-FIT test in primary care. Raman-FIT may accelerate access to diagnosis with the potential to improve cancer outcomes.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Lay members (J. H. and I. H.) with experience and knowledge of colorectal cancer and screening contributed to developing, undertaking, and disseminating all aspects of the research. They were supported to collaborate as equal members of the research team. They were involved in developing the study as coapplicants, using personal experience to ensure that the research and its methods were relevant to the patient and public needs. Both prepared participant information sheets, coanalysed data, and contributed to study reporting and dissemination through papers, conference presentations and a lay summary.

Comparing Patient and Provider Priorities Around Amputation Level Outcomes Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia may require a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) or a transtibial amputation. When making an amputation-level decision, these patients face a tradeoff-a TMA preserves more limb and may provide better mobility but has a lower probability of primary wound healing and may therefore result in additional same or higher level amputation surgeries with an associated negative impact on function. Understanding differences in how patients and providers prioritize these tradeoffs and other outcomes may enhance shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

Compare patient priorities with provider perceptions of patient priorities using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

METHODS

The MCDA Analytic Hierarchy Process was chosen due to its low cognitive burden and ease of implementation. We included 5 criteria (outcomes): ability to walk, healing after amputation surgery, rehabilitation program intensity, limb length, and ease of use of prosthetic/orthotic device. A national sample of dysvascular lower-limb amputees and providers were recruited from the Veterans Health Administration with the MCDA administered online to providers and telephonically to patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-six dysvascular amputees and 38 providers participated. Fifty percent of patients had undergone a TMA; 50%, a transtibial amputation. When compared to providers, patients placed higher value on TMA (72% vs. 63%). Patient versus provider priorities were ability to walk (47% vs. 42%), healing (18% vs. 28%), ease of prosthesis use (17% vs. 13%), limb length (11% vs. 13%), and then rehabilitation intensity (7% vs. 6%).

LIMITATIONS

Our sample may not generalize to other populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider perceptions aligned with patient values on amputation level but varied around the importance of each outcome.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings illuminate some differences between patients' values and provider perceptions of patient values, suggesting a role for shared decision-making. Embedding this MCDA framework into a future decision aid may facilitate these discussions.

Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial

Importance

The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy.

Objective

To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022.

Exposure

Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year.

Results

A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

The Development and Pilot Study of a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Compare Patient and Provider Priorities around Amputation-Level Outcomes

Background. Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who are facing a lower-limb amputation often require a transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) or a transtibial amputation (TTA). A TMA preserves more of the patient's limb and may provide better mobility but has a lower probability of primary wound healing relative to a TTA and may result in additional amputation surgeries. Understanding the differences in how patients and providers prioritize key outcomes may enhance the amputation decisional process. Purpose. To develop and pilot test a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool to elicit patient values around amputation-level selection and compare those with provider perceptions of patient values. Methods. We conducted literature reviews to identify and measure the performance of criteria important to patients. Because the quantitative literature was sparse, we developed a Sheffield elicitation framework exercise to elicit criteria performance from subject matter experts. We piloted our MCDA among patients and providers to understand tool acceptability and preliminarily assess differences in patient and provider priorities. Results. Five criteria of importance were identified: ability to walk, healing after amputation surgery, rehabilitation intensity, limb length, and prosthetic/orthotic device ease. Patients and providers successfully completed the MCDA and identified challenges in doing so. We propose potential solutions to these challenges. The results of the pilot test suggest differences in patient and provider outcome priorities. Limitations. The pilot test study enrolled a small sample of providers and patients. Conclusions. We successfully implemented the pilot study to patients and providers, received helpful feedback, and identified solutions to improve the tool. Implications. Once modified, our MCDA tool will be suitable for wider rollout.

Highlights

Patients and providers have successfully completed our MCDA, and patients feel the MCDA may be useful in clinical practice.We encountered several methodologic challenges and identified approaches to ease participant burden.When data are sparse, using the Sheffield elicitation framework is helpful in creating a performance matrix, although patients relied largely on their amputation experiences to complete the exercise. Blinding the alternatives may help patients better understand the process.

Design of a randomized controlled trial to assess the comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve three-year adherence to colorectal cancer screening among patients cared for in rural community health centers

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, yet significant disparities persist among those living in rural areas, from minority backgrounds, and those having low income. The purpose of this two-arm randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness and fidelity of a stepped care (increasing intensity as needed) approach to promoting 3-year adherence to CRC screening via fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy in rural community clinics serving high rates of low-income and minority patients. We hypothesize that, compared to enhanced usual care (EUC), patients receiving the multifaceted CRC screening intervention will demonstrate higher rates of CRC screening completion over 3 years. Participants from six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs; N = 1200 patients) serving predominately low-income populations in rural Louisiana will be randomized to the intervention or EUC arm. All participants will receive health literacy-directed CRC counseling, simplified materials about both the FIT and colonoscopy procedures, and motivational interviewing to aid in the determination of test preference. Participants in the intervention arm will also receive motivational reminder messages from their primary care provider (via audio recording or tailored text) for either a scheduled colonoscopy or return of a completed FIT. Participants in the EUC arm will receive the standard follow-up provided by their clinic or colonoscopy facility. The primary outcome will be completion of either colonoscopy or annual FIT over 3 years. Results will provide evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention to decrease disparities in CRC screening completion related to health literacy, race, and gender. Trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT04313114.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.

Evaluating preferences for colorectal cancer screening in individuals under age 50 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

BACKGROUND

In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation, stating that individuals ages 45-49 should initiate screening for colorectal cancer. Since several screening strategies are recommended, making a shared decision involves including an individual's preferences. Few studies have included individuals under age 50. In this study, we use a multicriteria decision analysis technique called the Analytic Hierarchy Process to explore preferences for screening strategies and evaluate whether preferences vary by age.

METHODS

Participants evaluated a hierarchy with 3 decision alternatives (colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography), 3 criteria (test effectiveness, the screening plan, and features of the test) and 7 sub-criteria. We used the linear fit method to calculate consistency ratios and the eigenvector method for group preferences. We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess whether results are robust to change and tested differences in preferences by participant variables using chi-square and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Of the 579 individuals surveyed, 556 (96%) provided complete responses to the AHP portion of the survey. Of these, 247 participants gave responses consistent enough (CR < 0.18) to be included in the final analysis. Participants that were either white or have lower health literacy were more likely to be excluded due to inconsistency. Colonoscopy was the preferred strategy in those < 50 and fecal immunochemical test was preferred by those over age 50 (p = 0.002). These results were consistent when we restricted analysis to individuals ages 45-55 (p = 0.011). Participants rated test effectiveness as the most important criteria for making their decision (weight = 0.555). Sensitivity analysis showed our results were robust to shifts in criteria and sub-criteria weights.

CONCLUSIONS

We reveal potential differences in preferences for screening strategies by age that could influence the adoption of screening programs to include individuals under age 50. Researchers and practitioners should consider at-home interventions using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to assist with the formulation of preferences that are key to shared decision-making. The costs associated with different preferences for screening strategies should be explored further if limited resources must be allocated to screen individuals ages 45-49.

Bias Issues in Colorectal Cancer Management: A Review

Based on census data, over one-third of the US population identifies as a racial or ethnic minority. This group of racial and ethnic minorities is more likely to develop cancer and die from it when compared with the general population of the USA. These disparities are most pronounced in the African American community. Despite overall CRC rates decreasing nationally and within certain racial and ethnic minorities in the USA, there continue to be disparities in incidence and mortality when compared with non-Hispanic Whites. The disparities in CRC incidence and mortality are related to systematic racism and bias inherent in healthcare systems and society. Disparities in CRC management will continue to exist until specific interventions are implemented in the context of each racial and ethnic group. This review's primary aim is to highlight the disparities in CRC among African Americans in the USA. For surgeons, understanding these disparities is formative to creating change and improving the quality of care, centering equity for all patients.

Comparative effectiveness of five fecal immunochemical tests using colonoscopy as the gold standard: study protocol

BACKGROUND

There are nearly 50,000 colorectal cancer (CRC) deaths in the United States each year. CRC is curable if detected in its early stages. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can detect precursor lesions and many can be analyzed at the point-of-care (POC) in physician offices. However, there are few data to guide test selection. Broader use of FITs could make CRC screening more accessible, especially in resource-poor settings.

METHODS

A total of 3600 racially and ethnically diverse individuals aged 50 to 85 years having either a screening or surveillance colonoscopy will be recruited. Each participant will complete five FITs on a single stool sample. Test characteristics for each FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) will be calculated using colonoscopy as the gold standard.

RESULTS

We have complete data from a total of 2990 individuals. Thirty percent are Latino and 5.3% are black/African American. We will present full results once the study is completed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our focus in this study is how well FITs detect ACN, using colonoscopy as the gold standard. Four of the five FITs being used are POC tests. Although FITs have been shown to have acceptable performance, there is little data to guide which ones have the best test characteristics and colonoscopy is the main CRC screening test used in the United States. Use of FITs will allow broader segments of the population to access CRC screening because these tests require no preparation, are inexpensive, and can be collected in the privacy of one's home. Increasing CRC screening uptake will reduce the burden of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer.

Estimating the preferences and willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening: an opportunity to incorporate the perspective of population at risk into policy development in Thailand

AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the public health burdens that can be lowered by early detection. This study aims to examine the preferences and willingness-to-pay of a population at risk for CRC screening in Thailand. Understanding the preferences for these individuals at risk would help Thailand, as an example of LMICs, to design effective population-based CRC screening programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among screening-naïve adults aged 50-75 years, who were at risk of CRC, in the out-patient department of a tertiary care hospital in Thailand. A DCE questionnaire was developed from six CRC screening attributes. Each questionnaire was composed of six choice sets and each contained two alternatives described by the different levels of attributes and an opt-out alternative. Participants were asked to choose one alternative from each choice set. A multinomial logit model was developed to determine the relative preference of each attribute. The willingness-to-pays for all attributes and screening modalities and the estimated preferred choices of the annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), 10-yearly colonoscopy, 5-yearly double-contrast barium enema (DCBE), 5-yearly computed tomographic colonography (CTC), 5-yearly flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), and no screening was calculated and compared.

RESULTS

Four hundred participants were included. All attributes, except pain and less bowel preparation, were statistically associated with the participants' preference (p < .05). They preferred screenings with a high-risk reduction of CRC-related mortality, no complication, 5-year interval, and lower cost. The estimated preferred choices of FIT, colonoscopy, DCBE, CTC, and FS were 38.2%, 11.4%, 14.6%, 9.2%, and 11.4%, respectively. The willingness-to-pays for each screening modality was US$251, US$189, US$183, US$154, and US$142 (8,107, 6,105, 5,911, 4,974, and 4,587 THB) per episode, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk reduction of CRC-related mortality, complication, screening interval, and cost influenced the CRC screening preferences of Thai adults. FIT was the most preferred. Policymakers can develop a successful CRC screening campaign using these findings, incorporating the perspective of the population at risk in policy formulation to accomplish their goals.

Noninvasive Detection of Colorectal Carcinomas Using Serum Protein Biomarkers

BACKGROUND

A major roadblock to reducing the mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) is prompt detection and treatment, and a simple blood test is likely to have higher compliance than all of the current methods. The purpose of this report is to examine the utility of a mass spectrometry-based blood serum protein biomarker test for detection of CRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Blood was drawn from individuals (n = 213) before colonoscopy or from patients with nonmetastatic CRC (n = 50) before surgery. Proteins were isolated from the serum of patients using targeted liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. We designed a machine-learning statistical model to assess these proteins.

RESULTS

When considered individually, over 70% of the selected biomarkers showed significance by Mann-Whitney testing for distinguishing cancer-bearing cases from cancer-free cases. Using machine-learning methods, peptides derived from epidermal growth factor receptor and leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1 were consistently identified as highly predictive for detecting CRC from cancer-free cases. A five-marker panel consisting of leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1, epidermal growth factor receptor, inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy-chain family member 4, hemopexin, and superoxide dismutase 3 performed the best with 70% specificity at over 89% sensitivity (area under the curve = 0.86) in the validation set. For distinguishing regional from localized cancers, cross-validation within the training set showed that a panel of four proteins consisting of CD44 molecule, GC-vitamin D-binding protein, C-reactive protein, and inter-alpha-trypsin inhibitor heavy-chain family member 3 yielded the highest performance (area under the curve = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The minimally invasive blood biomarker panels identified here could serve as screening/detection alternatives for CRC in a human population and potentially useful for staging of existing cancer.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.

METHODS

We searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings.

INTERVENTIONS

Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation).

RESULTS

All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Which Fecal Immunochemical Test Should I Choose?

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) available in the United States, the 2014 pathology proficiency testing (PT) program FIT results, and the literature related to the test characteristics of FITs available in the United States to detect advanced adenomatous polyps (AAP) and/or colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Detailed review of the Food and Drug Administration's Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) database of fecal occult blood tests, the 2014 FIT PT program results, and the literature related to FIT accuracy.

RESULTS

A search of the CLIA database identified 65 FITs, with 26 FITs available for purchase in the United States. Thirteen of these FITs were evaluated on a regular basis by PT programs, with an overall sensitivity of 99.1% and specificity of 99.2% for samples spiked with hemoglobin. Automated FITs had better sensitivity and specificity than CLIA-waived FITs for detection of AAP and CRC in human studies using colonoscopy as the gold standard.

CONCLUSION

Although many FITs are available in the United States, few have been tested in proficiency testing programs. Even fewer have data in humans on sensitivity and specificity for AAP or CRC. Our review indicates that automated FITs have the best test characteristics for AAP and CRC.

Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

To assess public preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance tests for intermediate-risk adenomas, using a hypothetical scenario.

METHODS

Adults aged 45-54 years without CRC were identified from three General Practices in England (two in Cumbria, one in London). A postal survey was carried out during a separate study on preferences for different first-line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). Individuals were allocated at random to receive a pack containing information on one first-line test, and a paragraph describing CRC surveillance recommendations for people who are diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas during screening. All participants received a description of two surveillance options: annual single-sample, home-based stool testing (consistent with Faecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy. Invitees were asked to imagine they had been diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas, and then complete a questionnaire on their surveillance preferences.

RESULTS

22.1 % (686/3,100) questionnaires were returned. 491 (15.8 %) were eligible for analysis. The majority of participants stated a surveillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no surveillance: 0.2 %). Women were more likely to prefer the stool test than men (66.7 % vs. 53.6 %; p = .011). The primary reason for preferring the stool test was that it would be done more frequently. The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of participants stated a preference for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy. Future research should test whether this translates to greater adherence in a real surveillance setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN85697880 , prospectively registered on 25/04/2013.

Targets for Neoadjuvant Therapy - The Preferences of Patients with Early Breast Cancer

Background: Therapists and administrative bodies consider a pathological complete remission as an independent and relevant endpoint in evaluations of the clinical utility of neoadjuvant therapy for early breast cancer. The present study aims to investigate which treatment outcomes of a neoadjuvant therapy are considered by the patients themselves to be relevant. Materials and Methods: With the help of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods patient preferences about the treatment targets of neoadjuvant therapy were assessed quantitatively. All participants had undergone a neoadjuvant therapy in the form of chemotherapy and, in HER2-positive cases, as a targeted antibody therapy against HER2 for the primary diagnosis of early breast cancer 12-36 months prior to the interview. The criteria for the hierarchy model were identified in an earlier qualitative survey. The patient interviews were conducted by 4 experienced female interviewers. Results: Forty-one patients participated in the quantitative survey, of these 15 (36.6 %) had suffered from HER2-positive disease. The achievement of pCR was the most important therapeutic target for the patients, even before disease-free survival, overall survival and the option for breast-preserving operation. Avoidance of side effects was considered to be the least important. In a comparison of the side effects the patients judged fatigue to be most important before nausea and loss of hair. Conclusion: For the patients the achievement of a pathological complete remission is considered to be an independent, relevant and highly desired target of neoadjuvant therapy.

Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys

OBJECTIVES

Primary care physicians (PCPs) should prescribe faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening based on their patient's values and preferences. However, there are wide variations between PCPs in the screening method prescribed. The objective was to assess the impact of an educational intervention on PCPs' intent to offer FIT or colonoscopy on an equal basis.

DESIGN

Survey before and after training seminars, with a parallel comparison through a mailed survey to PCPs not attending the training seminars.

SETTING

All PCPs in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 592 eligible PCPs, 133 (22%) attended a seminar and 106 (80%) filled both surveys. 109 (24%) PCPs who did not attend the seminars returned the mailed survey.

INTERVENTION

A 2 h-long interactive seminar targeting PCP knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding offering a choice of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was PCP intention of having their patients screened with FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions (between 40% and 60% each). Secondary outcomes were the perceived role of PCPs in screening decisions (from paternalistic to informed decision-making) and correct answer to a clinical vignette.

RESULTS

Before the seminars, 8% of PCPs reported that they had equal proportions of their patients screened for CRC by FIT and colonoscopy; after the seminar, 33% foresaw having their patients screened in equal proportions (p<0.001). Among those not attending, there was no change (13% vs 14%, p=0.8). Of those attending, there was no change in their perceived role in screening decisions, while the proportion responding correctly to a clinical vignette increased (88-99%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An interactive training seminar increased the proportion of physicians with the intention to prescribe FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions.

Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

Background

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty in the late 1970s, is one of the methods for multi-criteria decision making. The AHP disaggregates a complex decision problem into different hierarchical levels. The weight for each criterion and alternative are judged in pairwise comparisons and priorities are calculated by the Eigenvector method. The slowly increasing application of the AHP was the motivation for this study to explore the current state of its methodology in the healthcare context.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted by searching the Pubmed and Web of Science databases for articles with the following keywords in their titles or abstracts: “Analytic Hierarchy Process,” “Analytical Hierarchy Process,” “multi-criteria decision analysis,” “multiple criteria decision,” “stated preference,” and “pairwise comparison.” In addition, we developed reporting criteria to indicate whether the authors reported important aspects and evaluated the resulting studies’ reporting.

Results

The systematic review resulted in 121 articles. The number of studies applying AHP has increased since 2005. Most studies were from Asia (almost 30 %), followed by the US (25.6 %). On average, the studies used 19.64 criteria throughout their hierarchical levels. Furthermore, we restricted a detailed analysis to those articles published within the last 5 years (n = 69). The mean of participants in these studies were 109, whereas we identified major differences in how the surveys were conducted. The evaluation of reporting showed that the mean of reported elements was about 6.75 out of 10. Thus, 12 out of 69 studies reported less than half of the criteria.

Conclusion

The AHP has been applied inconsistently in healthcare research. A minority of studies described all the relevant aspects. Thus, the statements in this review may be biased, as they are restricted to the information available in the papers. Hence, further research is required to discover who should be interviewed and how, how inconsistent answers should be dealt with, and how the outcome and stability of the results should be presented. In addition, we need new insights to determine which target group can best handle the challenges of the AHP.