Abstract 1930: Community outreach and engagement to increase colorectal cancer screening in ethnic minority communities

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is preventable with screening, yet remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S. Nationally, CRC screening substantially declined during the COVID-19 pandemic and is underutilized by ethnic minorities and in safety-net systems. Therefore, City of Hope partnered with Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and community and faith-based organizations to improve CRC screening among medically underserved communities.

METHODS: Between October 2020 and October 2022, we implemented a multi-component intervention that included community outreach and education (a multi-ethnic multimedia campaign and community training adapted from the NCI Screen2Save (S2S) program) and clinic-based interventions (provider/staff training and patient education). Intervention reach and training participant surveys were assessed. Within our four FQHC sites, we also compared clinic-level CRC screening rates among age-eligible patients before (June 2021) and after implementation of the clinic-based intervention (June 2022).

RESULTS: Our reach assessment showed that our multi-ethnic multimedia campaign reached 35.4 million impressions, our S2S education training reached 300 diverse community members, and our provider/staff training reached 150 medical providers. Among the 100 providers surveyed, >80% felt confident they could get their patients to complete their CRC screening test and follow-up care. For the clinic-based intervention component, our baseline sample included 11,259 age-eligible patients across the four FQHC sites. Overall CRC screening rates increased from 45% to 52% before vs. after the intervention implementation period. The site with the highest CRC screening rate (>62%) maintained steady rates over the observation period, whereas three sites with lower baseline rates showed greater pre-post improvements (average 15 percentage-point increase).

CONCLUSIONS: An overall increase in CRC screening rates was achieved across FQHCs, despite clinic staffing challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Intervention implementation is ongoing with attempts to document individual, clinic improvements by race/ethnicity.

Keyword 1: Cancer risk Keyword 2: Cancer detection

Citation Format: Kimlin Ashing, Marisela Garcia, Trilokesh Kidambi, Gregory Idos, Sophia Yeung, Charleen Mikail, Magaret Martinez, Scott Kim, Kim Tran, Paul Gregerson, Paul Round, Cherry Lee, Pei-Chi Wu, Nancy Chen, Stephen Denq, Narissa Nonzee. Community outreach and engagement to increase colorectal cancer screening in ethnic minority communities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 1930.

Patient navigators' reflections on the navigator-patient relationship

Patient navigation emerged as a strategy to reduce cancer disparities among low-income and minority patients and has demonstrated efficacy in improving clinical outcomes. Observational studies have contributed valuable evaluations of navigation processes and tasks; however, few have offered in-depth reflections about the relationship between patient and navigator from the navigators' perspective. These approaches have addressed the emotional and relational components of patient navigation through the lens of process factors, relegating the navigator-patient relationship to a siloed, compartmentalized functionality. To expand upon existing task-oriented definitions of navigation, we conducted qualitative interviews among community-based patient navigators who coordinated care for uninsured, predominantly Hispanic, women receiving cancer screening and follow-up care in a county outside Chicago. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes within the navigator-patient relationship domain. The main themes that emerged centered on relational roles, relational boundaries, and ideal navigator relational qualities. While patient navigators described engaging with patients in a manner similar to a friend, they stressed the importance of maintaining professional boundaries. Navigators' support assisted patients in bridging their hospital and community lives, a result of navigators' investment in both hemispheres. We conclude that the navigator-patient relationship is not a self-contained utility, but rather the medium through which all other navigator functions are enabled. These insights further characterize the navigator-patient relationship, which will help shape the development of future navigation programs and support the need for further research on the impact of relationship factors on clinical and psychosocial outcome measures.

Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the United States. Prior studies reporting the cost effectiveness of randomized interventions to improve CRC screening have not been replicated in the setting of small physician practices. We recently conducted a randomized trial evaluating an academic detailing intervention in 264 small practices in geographically diverse New York City communities. The objective of this secondary analysis is to assess the cost effectiveness of this intervention.

METHODS

A total of 264 physician offices were randomly assigned to usual care or to a series of visits from trained physician educators. CRC screening rates were measured at baseline and 12 months. The intervention costs were measured and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying cost and effectiveness estimates.

RESULTS

Academic detailing was associated with a 7% increase in CRC screening with colonoscopy. The total intervention cost was $147,865, and the ICER was $21,124 per percentage point increase in CRC screening rate. Sensitivity analyses that varied the costs of the intervention and the average medical practice size were associated with ICERs ranging from $13,631 to $36,109 per percentage point increase in CRC screening rates.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive, multicomponent academic detailing intervention conducted in small practices in metropolitan New York was clinically effective in improving CRC screening rates, but was not cost effective.

Accelerated approval of cancer drugs: improved access to therapeutic breakthroughs or early release of unsafe and ineffective drugs?

PURPOSE

Accelerated approval (AA) was initiated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to shorten development times of drugs for serious medical illnesses. Sponsors must confirm efficacy in postapproval trials. Confronted with several drugs that received AA on the basis of phase II trials and for which confirmatory trials were incomplete, FDA officials have encouraged sponsors to design AA applications on the basis of interim analyses of phase III trials.

METHODS

We reviewed data on orphan drug status, development time, safety, and status of confirmatory trials of AAs and regular FDA approvals of new molecular entities (NMEs) for oncology indications since 1995.

RESULTS

Median development times for AA NMEs (n = 19 drugs) and regular-approval oncology NMEs (n = 32 drugs) were 7.3 and 7.2 years, respectively. Phase III trials supported efficacy for 75% of regular-approval versus 26% of AA NMEs and for 73% of non-orphan versus 45% of orphan drug approvals. AA accounted for 78% of approvals for oncology NMEs between 2001 and 2003 but accounted for 32% in more recent years. Among AA NMEs, confirmatory trials were nine-fold less likely to be completed for orphan drug versus non-orphan drug indications. Postapproval, black box warnings were added to labels for four oncology NMEs (17%) that had received AA and for two oncology NMEs (9%) that had received regular approval.

CONCLUSION

AA oncology NMEs are safe and effective, although development times are not accelerated. A return to endorsing phase II trial designs for AA for oncology NMEs, particularly for orphan drug indications, may facilitate timely FDA approval of novel cancer drugs.

Quality-of-life and LhRH agonist therapy among prostate cancer patients following PSA failure

e16083

Background: Growing numbers of prostate cancer patients experience biochemical relapse (PSA failure) after initial treatment. LhRH agonist (hormonal) therapy can reduce PSA levels, but there is no clear evidence that it slows disease progression or reduces mortality. Quality of Life (QoL) issues are essential when deciding between observation (OBS) versus hormonal castration following biochemical relapse. We evaluated health related quality of life and treatment satisfaction among prostate cancer patients who experience PSA failure. Methods: Eligibility criteria were receipt of primary therapy for prostate cancer followed by a PSA nadir and subsequent PSA rise to at least 0.2 ng/ml. Data sources include medical records and interviewer administered surveys on health- related QoL at baseline, 3 and 12 months. Results: Castrated versus observed patients who are satisfied with their sexual activity report similar health-related QoL, with the exception of higher rates of maintaining an erection (73.3% vs. 32.0%) and not having prostate cancer affect sexual activity (66.7% vs. 28.6%). Castrated and expectant management patients with low levels of satisfaction and sexual activity report similar health-related QoL. Conclusions: Among patients with PSA Failure, the only health-related QOL difference is reflected in sexual activity related to erectile dysfunction, but not sexual satisfaction among patients who all have a high level of treatment decision satisfaction and sexual activity. [Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Interpreting out-of-pocket expenditures for cancer patients: The importance of considering baseline household income information

6541

Background: Few studies have examined cancer-related out-of-pocket costs (expenses resulting from cancer morbidity and treatment that are not covered by insurance) as a function of baseline household income. We report income-adjusted out-of-pocket cost ratios for 50 patients with lymphoma and 156 patients with breast cancer. Methods: Patients with lymphoma or breast cancer provided 3-month retrospective documentation of cancer-related out-of-pocket costs. Costs were adjusted for income by dividing monthly costs by monthly household income. Direct medical costs include costs related to medications, doctor visits, and hospital stays. Direct non-medical costs are cancer-related peripheral costs, such as transportation and meals. Indirect costs are costs due to lost income. Results: Of our study patients, 83% were Caucasian, 65% were married, 53% were employed, and 65% had at least a bachelor's degree. All patients were undergoing active treatment and had insurance. Mean monthly out-of-pocket costs for patients with lymphoma were slightly greater than for those with breast cancer ($1,888 vs $1,455, respectively). Among patients with an annual income of $30,000 or less, the total monthly out-of-pocket costs were more than 3 times the monthly household income for patients with lymphoma and equal to the monthly household income for patients with breast cancer. The total mean income-adjusted cost ratio was 1.75 for patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma versus 0.42 and 0.61 for those with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin disease, respectively. Conclusions: Cancer-related out-of-pocket expenses disproportionately affect lower-income individuals with lymphoma or breast cancer and are primarily driven by the financial burden of co-payments for medical care. Future studies should evaluate out-of-pocket costs in relation to household income to determine more accurately the economic burden of cancer.

[Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening

6583

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized. Prior studies reported the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve CRC screening, but none have been replicated in the setting of small medical practices. We recently conducted a randomized trial of an academic detailing strategy within 264 small physician offices in New York City. The objective of this analysis is to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. Methods: 264 physician offices were randomized to usual care or to a series of ‘academic detailing’ visits from health educators trained in evidence-based CRC screening guidelines. CRC screening rates were measured at baseline and 12 months. Intervention-related costs were categorized as fixed or intervention delivery costs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as cost per percentage point increase in CRC screening. Each practice contained an average of 4 physicians. Sensitivity analyses were estimated by varying the number of physicians per practice and accordingly, intervention delivery costs. Results: Academic detailing resulted in a 7% increase in CRC screening with colonoscopy. The cost of the intervention was $147,865. The ICER was $21,124 per percentage point increase in CRC screening. Sensitivity analyses that varied the intervention delivery costs by the average medical practice size were associated with ICERs ranging from $13,361 (8 physicians/office) to $36,109 (2 physicians/office) per percentage point increase in CRC screening rates. Conclusions: A multi-component academic detailing intervention conducted in small urban practices was clinically effective, but was not cost-effective when compared to other reported low-intensity patient-directed and infrastructural interventions ($131-$1,161 per percentage increase in CRC screening). (Table) While academic detailing may be more cost-effective in physician practices of larger size, new cost-effective approaches in small community practices are needed.

[Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of a Low-Intensity Patient-Directed Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening

Purpose

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is the most underused evidence-based cancer screening test in the United States. Few studies have reported the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening promotional efforts. In a recent randomized controlled trial, a patient-directed intervention for average-risk patients who had been referred for screening colonoscopy led to a 12% increase in CRC screening rates. The objective of this secondary analysis is to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Patients and Methods

Patients in the intervention arm received a customized mailed brochure that included a reminder to schedule a screening colonoscopy and general information about CRC, the importance of CRC screening, and how to prepare for the procedure. The end point was completion of screening colonoscopy. The costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this patient-directed intervention were derived. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying the costs of labor and supplies.

Results

Rates of CRC screening for the intervention (n = 386 patients) versus control (n = 395) arms were 71% and 59%, respectively (P = .001). The total cost of the intervention was $1,927 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43 per additional patient screened ($38 to $47 in a sensitivity analysis).

Conclusion

An intervention based on mailing a customized brochure to patients who were referred for a screening colonoscopy improved CRC screening rates at a university-based general medicine clinic. This intervention was comparable in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to a similar recently reported low-intensity patient-directed CRC screening intervention, and markedly more affordable and cost-effective than a previously reported physician-directed CRC screening promotion intervention.