Randomized Controlled Trial of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment vs Education to Promote Screening Uptake

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework.

RESULTS

Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Using Online Colorectal Cancer Risk Calculators to Guide Screening Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Several online calculators estimate colorectal cancer risk, but their consistency is unknown. Our objectives were to quantify the variation in predicted risk and to determine which calculators are best used in the clinical setting.

METHODS

We used the Google search engine to identify online colorectal cancer risk calculators and assessed the output of each for 3 hypothetical screening scenarios (low-, average-, and high-risk), varied by age (50, 62, 75 years), sex, and race (Black, White), with risk levels based on risk-appropriate values for variables in each model. Estimated risks for models within a given scenario were rated as consistent or inconsistent based on comparison with either the absolute magnitude of difference or average lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Summary statistics for consistent and inconsistent estimates were compared using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

We identified 5 online colorectal cancer risk calculators. Inconsistencies were found in none of 5-year, 19% of 10-year, and 81% of lifetime colorectal cancer risk estimate comparisons (P < .001). For a 50-year-old, 22% of risk estimate comparisons were inconsistent, vs 33% for a 62-year-old, and 36% for a 75-year-old (P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Online colorectal cancer risk models are more consistent in predicting colorectal cancer risk for 5- and 10-year time frames compared with lifetime. For a US population, the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool is a rigorously developed calculator that can be used in the clinical setting to provide 5-year and lifetime risk estimates.

Cost-Effectiveness of Earlier or More Intensive Colorectal Cancer Screening in Overweight and Obese Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Overweight and obese persons have not only elevated rates of colorectal cancer (CRC), but also higher competing mortality and healthcare spending. We examined the cost-effectiveness of intensified CRC screening in overweight and obese persons.

METHODS

We adapted our validated decision analytic model of CRC screening to compare screening starting at 45 or 40 years of age instead of at 50 years of age, or shortening screening intervals, in women and men with body mass index (BMI) ranging from normal to grade III obesity. Strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years (Colo10) or every 5 years (Colo5), or annual fecal immunochemical test.

RESULTS

Without screening, sex-specific total CRC deaths were similar for persons with overweight or obesity I-III, reflecting the counterbalancing of higher CRC risk by lower life expectancy as BMI rises. For all BMI and sex groups, Colo10 starting at 45 years of age or FIT starting at 40 years of age were cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Colo10 starting at 40 years of age was cost-effective only for men with obesity II-III, at $93,300 and $80,400 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. Shifting Colo10 to earlier starting ages was always preferred over Colo5 starting at later ages. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis, including varying all-cause mortality, complication, and BMI-specific CRC risks.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC screening starting at 45 years of age with colonoscopy, or at 40 years of age with FIT, appears cost-effective for women and men across the range of BMI. In men with obesity II-III, who have the highest CRC but also all-cause mortality risks, colonoscopy starting at 40 years of age appears cost-effective. It remains to be decided whether BMI should be used as a single predictor or incorporated into a multivariable tool to tailor CRC screening.

Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening

OPINION STATEMENT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) imposes significant morbidity and mortality, yet it is also largely preventable with evidence-based screening strategies. In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated guidance, recommending screening begin at age 45 for average-risk individuals to reduce CRC incidence and mortality in the United States (US). The Task Force recommends screening with one of several screening strategies: high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HSgFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (virtual colonoscopy), flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FIT, or traditional colonoscopy. In addition to these recommended options, there are several emerging and novel CRC screening modalities that are not yet approved for first-line screening in average-risk individuals. These include blood-based screening or "liquid biopsy," colon capsule endoscopy, urinary metabolomics, and stool-based microbiome testing for the detection of colorectal polyps and/or CRC. In order to maximize CRC screening uptake in the US, patients and providers should engage in informed decision-making about the benefits and limitations of recommended screening options to determine the most appropriate screening test. Factors to consider include the invasiveness of the test, test performance, screening interval, accessibility, and cost. In addition, health systems should have a programmatic approach to CRC screening, which may include evidence-based strategies such as patient education, provider education, mailed screening outreach, and/or patient navigation, to maximize screening participation.

When Should We Let Colorectal Cancer Screening Get Personal?

Although screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and related mortality, national CRC screening rates remain suboptimal. Identifying strategies to improve screening rates remains an area of intense focus, and previous literature supports an association between the perceived risk of CRC and a likelihood or intent to complete screening. However, risk estimation alone through the validated National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool does not improve screening uptake compared with general education. Future studies should couple risk estimation with patient navigation and decision support aids to build upon our existing armamentarium of effective interventions.