Search

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, for whom the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged progress in achieving equity.MethodsA hub-and-spoke model was used. The hub was a nonacademic organization and the spokes were three community health center (CHC) systems overseeing numerous clinic sites. Via a cluster-randomized trial design, nine clinic sites were randomized to intervention and 16 clinic sites were randomized to usual care. Patient-level interventions included invitation letters, mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), and call/text-based reminders. Year 1 intervention impact, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, was assessed as the proportion completing screening among individuals not up to date at baseline, which compared intervention and nonintervention clinics accounting for intraclinic cluster variation; confidence intervals (CIs) around differences not including 0 were interpreted as statistically significant.ResultsAmong 26,736 patients who met eligibility criteria, approximately 58% were female, 55% were Hispanic individuals, and 44% were Spanish speaking. The proportion completing screening was 11.5 percentage points (ppts) (95% CI, 6.1-16.9 ppts) higher in intervention versus usual care clinics. Variation in differences between intervention and usual care clinics was observed by sex (12.6 ppts [95% CI, 7.2-18.0 ppts] for females; 8.8 ppts [95% CI, 4.7-13.9 ppts] for males) and by racial and ethnic group (13.8 ppts [95% CI, 7.0-20.6 ppts] for Hispanic individuals; 13.0 ppts [95% CI, 3.6-22.4 ppts] for Asian individuals; 11.3 ppts [95% CI, 5.8-16.8 ppts] for non-Hispanic White individuals; 6.1 ppts [95% CI, 0.8-10.4 ppts] for Black individuals).ConclusionsA regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low-income populations.

INTRODUCTION: At-home colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an effective way to reduce CRC mortality, but screening rates in medically underserved groups are low. To plan the implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial comparing two population-based outreach approaches, we conducted qualitative research on current processes and barriers to at-home CRC screening in 10 community health centers (CHCs) that serve medically underserved groups, four each in Massachusetts and California, and two tribal facilities in South Dakota. METHODS: We conducted 53 semi-structured interviews with clinical and administrative staff at the participating CHCs. Participants were asked about CRC screening processes, categorized into eight domains: patient identification, outreach, risk assessment, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) workflows, FIT-DNA (i.e., Cologuard) workflows, referral for a follow-up colonoscopy, patient navigation, and educational materials. Transcripts were analyzed using a Rapid Qualitative Analysis approach. A matrix was used to organize and summarize the data into four sub-themes: current process, barriers, facilitators, and solutions to adapt materials for the intervention. RESULTS: Each sites process for stool-based CRC screening varied slightly. Interviewees identified the importance of offering educational materials in English and Spanish, using text messages to remind patients to return kits, adapting materials to address health literacy needs so patients can access instructions in writing, pictures, or video, creating mailed workflows integrated with a tracking system, and offering patient navigation to colonoscopy for patients with an abnormal result. CONCLUSION: Proposed solutions across the three regions will inform a multilevel intervention in a pragmatic trial to increase CRC screening uptake in CHCs.

Introduction/objectivesColonoscopy completion rates after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are suboptimal, resulting in missed opportunities for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Patient navigation and structured follow-up may improve colonoscopy completion, but implementation of these strategies is not widespread.MethodsWe conducted a quality improvement study using a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Model to increase colonoscopy completion after abnormal FIT in a large federally qualified health center serving a diverse and low-income population. Intervention components included patient navigation, and a checklist to promote completion of key steps required for abnormal FIT follow-up. Primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving colonoscopy completion within 6 months of abnormal FIT, assessed at baseline for 156 patients pre-intervention, and compared to 208 patients during the intervention period from April 2017 to December 2019. Drop offs at each step in the follow-up process were assessed.ResultsColonoscopy completion improved from 21% among 156 patients with abnormal FIT pre-intervention, to 38% among 208 patients with abnormal FIT during the intervention (P

IntroductionLimited data exists on the effectiveness of organized outreach campaigns on CRC screening completion for patients who are newly eligible for such screening.MethodsWe conducted an analysis of an existing clinical trial dataset of a publicly funded safety-net health system serving low-income populations.ResultsA total of 619 patients aged 50-51 received the outreach intervention and 3108 patients aged greater than 51 years old who had no prior history of FIT testing similarly received the outreach intervention. Patients newly eligible for FIT were more likely to complete a FIT test compared with older patients who had yet to complete a FIT test (58.3% vs 40.5%, p

IntroductionOrganized outreach to increase CRC screening using mailed FIT tests has been shown to be effective, but durable changes to screening behavior after cessation of screening is not known.MethodsIn this study, after cessation of funding for an organized cancer screening outreach program, we evaluated whether adherence to screening remained elevated. Patients aged 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight safety net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention vs usual care alone in 2016 to 2018; the primary outcome analyzed was the difference in the cumulative proportion of completed FIT screening between study assignments 1 year after study cessation.ResultsDespite higher rates of FIT screening for patients who were randomly assigned to the outreach intervention, FIT completion was not significantly different between the group that received the outreach services versus the usual care group (28.3% vs 29.8%, p = 0.158).ConclusionOutreach campaigns and their activities must be sustained to maintain improved rates of screening participation.

BackgroundThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the primary modality used by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LADHS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk patients. Some patients referred for FIT-positive diagnostic colonoscopy have neither adenomas nor more advanced pathology. We aimed to identify predictors of false-positive FIT (FP-FIT) results in our largely disenfranchised, low socioeconomic status population.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of 596 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive screening FIT. Colonoscopies showing adenomas (or more advanced pathology) were considered positive. We employed multiple logistic and linear regression as well as machine learning models (MLMs) to identify clinical predictors of FP-FIT (primary outcome) and the presence of advanced adenomas (secondary outcome).ResultsOverall, 268 patients (45.0%) had a FP-FIT. Female sex and hemorrhoids (odds ratios [ORs] 1.59 and 1.89, respectively) were associated with increased odds of FP-FIT and fewer advanced adenomas (β = - 0.658 and  - 0.516, respectively). Conversely, increasing age and BMI (ORs 0.94 and 0.96, respectively) were associated with decreased odds of FP-FIT and a greater number of advanced adenomas (β = 0.073 and 0.041, respectively). MLMs predicted FP-FIT with high specificity (93.8%) and presence of advanced adenoma with high sensitivity (94.4%).ConclusionIncreasing age and BMI are associated with lower odds of FP-FIT and greater number of advanced adenomas, while female sex and hemorrhoids are associated with higher odds of FP-FIT and fewer advanced adenomas. The presence of the aforementioned predictors may inform the decision to proceed with diagnostic colonoscopy in FIT-positive patients.

Background & aimsReports of mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach effectiveness over time are minimal. We aimed to better evaluate a mailed FIT program with longitudinal metrics.MethodsA total of 10,771 patients aged 50 to 75 years not up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. The intervention arm received an advanced notification call and informational postcard prior to a mailed FIT. Usual care was at the discretion of the primary care provider. Patients were followed for up to 2.5 years. The primary outcome was the difference in cumulative proportion of completed FIT screening between arms. Screening was further examined with the proportion of time up-to-date, consistency of adherence, and frequency of abnormal FIT.ResultsThe cumulative proportion of FIT completion was higher in the outreach intervention (73.2% vs 55.1%; P < .001). The proportion of time covered by screening was higher in the intervention group (46.8% vs 27.3%; Δ19.6%; 95% confidence interval, 18.2%-20.9%). Patients assigned to FIT outreach were more likely to consistently complete FITs (2 completed of 2 offered) (50.1% vs 21.8%; P < .001). However, for patients who did not complete the FIT during the first cycle, only 17.1% completed a FIT during the second outreach cycle. The number and overall proportion of abnormal FIT was significantly higher in the outreach intervention (6.9% Outreach vs 4.1% Usual Care; P < .01).ConclusionsOrganized mailed FIT outreach significantly increased colorectal cancer screening over multiple years in this safety-net health system. Although mailing was overall effective, the effect was modest in patients who did not complete FIT in first cycle of intervention. (ClincialTrials.gov, NCT02613260).

ObjectiveDespite some progress in recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence in the United States is still suboptimal, particularly among disadvantaged groups. In this study, we assessed the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and self-reported screening non-adherence (SNA) in a sample of racial/ethnic minorities living in San Francisco, California.Design/methodsA total of 376 participants of the San Francisco version of the Health Information National Trends Survey (SF-HINTS) with ages 50-75 years were included in this cross-sectional study. SNA was defined as not reporting blood stool test within the past year and not reporting sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy within the past 10 years. Poisson regression models with robust variance estimators were used to evaluate the relation of SES with SNA, adjusting for measured confounders. Results are reported as prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).ResultsOverall SNA was 40%. In multivariable models including all respondents, retired participants had significantly lower SNA prevalence than employed participants (PR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26 0.83). In stratified analyses by race/ethnicity, Black respondents with less than high school (PR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.09, 3.43) and those with high school or equivalent (PR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.16, 3.04) had significantly higher SNA prevalence than those with at least some college. Among non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islanders, those disabled had significantly higher prevalence of SNA as compared to employed people (PR = 4.26, 95% CI = 2.11, 8.60). None of the SES indicators were significantly associated to SNA among Hispanics.ConclusionsParticipants with lower SES characteristics were less likely to adhere to CRC screening guidelines and being retired was a predictor of compliance. There was evidence of heterogeneity in associations between SES and CRC screening by race/ethnicity. Life circumstances of retired people could provide insights for designing interventions aimed to improve CRC screening uptake in these priority groups. Future efforts should consider mechanisms underlying differences by race/ethnicity.

Opinion statementColorectal 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.

IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration introduced a clinical reminder system in 2018 to help address process gaps in colorectal cancer screening, including the diagnostic evaluation of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the differences between facilities who performed in the top vs bottom decile for follow-up colonoscopy.MethodsSeventeen semistructured interviews with gastroenterology (GI) providers and staff were conducted at 9 high-performing and 8 low-performing sites.ResultsWe identified 2 domains, current practices and perceived barriers, and most findings were described by both high- and low-performing sites. Findings exclusive to 1 group mainly pertained to current practices, especially arranging colonoscopy for FIT-positive patients. We observed only 1 difference in the perceived barriers domain, which pertained to primary care providers.DiscussionThese results suggest that what primarily distinguishes high- and low-performing sites is not a difference in barriers but rather in the GI clinical care process. Developing and disseminating patient education materials about the importance of diagnostic colonoscopy, eliminating in-person precolonoscopy visits when clinically appropriate, and involving GI in missed colonoscopy appointments and outside referrals should all be considered to increase follow-up colonoscopy rates. Our study illustrates the challenges of performing a timely colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and provides insights on improving the clinical care process for patients who are at substantially increased risk for colorectal cancer.

ObjectiveDigital health care offers an opportunity to scale and personalize cancer screening programs, such as mailed outreach for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, studies that describe the patient selection strategy and process for CRC screening are limited. Our objective was to evaluate implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening programs in large health care systems.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of 30 studies along with key informant surveys and interviews to describe programmatic implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening. PubMed and Embase were searched since inception through December 2018, and hand searches were performed of the retrieved reference lists but none were incorporated (n = 0). No language exclusions were applied.ResultsCommon criteria for outreach exclusion included: being up-to-date with routine CRC screening (n = 22), comorbidities (n = 20), and personal history (n = 22) or family history of cancer (n = 9). Key informant surveys and interviews were performed (n = 28) to understand data sources and practices for patient outreach selection, and found that 13 studies leveraged electronic medical care records, 10 studies leveraged a population registry (national, municipal, community, health), 4 studies required patient opt-in, and 1 study required primary care provider referral. Broad ranges in fecal immunochemical test completion were observed in community clinic (n = 8, 31.0-59.6%), integrated health system (n = 5, 21.2-82.7%), and national regional CRC screening programs (n = 17, 23.0-64.7%). Six studies used technical codes, and four studies required patient self-reporting from a questionnaire to participate.ConclusionThis systematic review provides health systems with the diverse outreach practices and technical tools to support efforts to automate patient selection for CRC screening outreach.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective, screening rates lag far below recommended levels, particularly for low-income people. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funded $100 million in competitively awarded grants to 25 states from 2009-2015 to increase CRC screening rates among low-income, uninsured populations, in part by directly providing and paying for screening services. Using data from the 2001-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and a difference-in-differences strategy, we find no effects of CRCCP on the use of relatively cheap fecal occult blood tests (FOBT). We do, however, find that the CRCCP significantly increased the likelihood that uninsured 50-64-year-olds report ever having a relatively expensive endoscopic CRC screening (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) by 2.9 percentage points, or 10.7%. These effects are larger for women, minorities, and individuals who did not undertake other types of preventive care. We do not find that the CRCCP led to significant changes in CRC cancer detection. Our results indicate that the CRCCP was effective at increasing CRC screening rates among the most vulnerable.

The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically impacted numerous health and economic fronts. Because of the stay-at-home mandate and practice of physical distancing, nearly all preventive care measures have been halted, including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The health consequences of this temporary suspension are of great concern, particularly for underserved populations, who experience substantial CRC-related disparities. In this commentary, we describe challenges and opportunities to deliver COVID-19-adapted CRC screening to medically underserved populations receiving care in community health centers (CHC). This perspective is based on key informant interviews with CHC medical directors, teleconference discussions, and strategic planning assessments. To address the unprecedented challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, we identify 2 broad calls to action: invest in CHCs now and support equitable and adaptable telehealth solutions now and in the future. We also recommend 4 CRC-specific calls to action: establish COVID-19-adapted best practices to implement mailed fecal immunochemical test programs, implement grassroots advocacy to identify community gastroenterologists who commit to performing colonoscopies for CHC patients, assess cancer prevention priorities among individuals in underserved communities, and assess regional CRC screening and follow-up barriers and solutions. The COVID-19 pandemic may further exacerbate existing CRC screening disparities in underserved individuals. This will likely lead to delayed diagnosis, a shift to later-stage disease, and increased CRC deaths. To prevent this from happening, we call for timely action and a commitment to address the current extraordinary CRC screening challenges for vulnerable populations.

The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically impacted numerous health and economic fronts. Because of the stay-at-home mandate and practice of physical distancing, nearly all preventive care measures have been halted, including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The health consequences of this temporary suspension are of great concern, particularly for underserved populations, who experience substantial CRC-related disparities. In this commentary, we describe challenges and opportunities to deliver COVID-19-adapted CRC screening to medically underserved populations receiving care in community health centers (CHC). This perspective is based on key informant interviews with CHC medical directors, teleconference discussions, and strategic planning assessments. To address the unprecedented challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, we identify 2 broad calls to action: invest in CHCs now and support equitable and adaptable telehealth solutions now and in the future. We also recommend 4 CRC-specific calls to action: establish COVID-19-adapted best practices to implement mailed fecal immunochemical test programs, implement grassroots advocacy to identify community gastroenterologists who commit to performing colonoscopies for CHC patients, assess cancer prevention priorities among individuals in underserved communities, and assess regional CRC screening and follow-up barriers and solutions. The COVID-19 pandemic may further exacerbate existing CRC screening disparities in underserved individuals. This will likely lead to delayed diagnosis, a shift to later-stage disease, and increased CRC deaths. To prevent this from happening, we call for timely action and a commitment to address the current extraordinary CRC screening challenges for vulnerable populations.

The purpose of this study was to first characterize the prevalence of recall, recognition, and knowledge of colon cancer screening tests and guidelines (collectively, "awareness") among non-Hispanic black (NHB) and NH white (NHW) urban colon cancer patients. Second, we sought to examine whether awareness was associated with mode of cancer detection. Low awareness regarding colon cancer screening tests and guidelines may explain low screening rates and high prevalence of symptomatic detection. We examined recall, recognition, and knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests and guidelines and their associations with mode of cancer detection (symptomatic versus screen-detected) in 374 newly diagnosed NHB and NHW patients aged 45-79. Patients were asked to name or describe any test to screen for colon cancer (recall); next, they were given descriptions of stool testing and colonoscopy and asked if they recognized each test (recognition). Lastly, patients were asked if they knew the screening guidelines (knowledge). Overall, awareness of CRC screening guidelines was low; just 20% and 13% of patients knew colonoscopy and fecal test guidelines, respectively. Awareness of CRC screening tests and guidelines was especially low among NHB males, socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, and those diagnosed at public healthcare facilities. Inability to name or recall a single test was associated with reduced screen-detected cancer compared with recall of at least one test (36% vs. 22%, p = 0.01). Low awareness of CRC screening tests is a risk factor for symptomatic detection of colon cancer.

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.ObjectiveTo update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

Background and aimsThe optimal time interval for diagnostic colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test is uncertain. We examined the association between time to colonoscopy and CRC outcomes among individuals who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal stool-based screening.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of veterans age 50 to 75 years with an abnormal fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) between 1999 and 2010. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards to generate CRC-specific incidence and mortality hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for 3-month colonoscopy intervals, with 1 to 3 months as the reference group. Association of time to colonoscopy with late-stage CRC diagnosis was also examined.ResultsOur cohort included 204,733 patients. Mean age was 61 years (SD 6.9). Compared with patients who received a colonoscopy at 1 to 3 months, there was an increased CRC risk for patients who received a colonoscopy at 13 to 15 months (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.00-1.27), 16 to 18 months (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.10-1.43), 19 to 21 months (HR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.11-1.48), and 22 to 24 months (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07-1.47). Compared with patients who received a colonoscopy at 1 to 3 months, mortality risk was higher in groups who received a colonoscopy at 19 to 21 months (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.51-1.99) and 22 to 24 months (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.03-1.88). Odds for late-stage CRC increased at 16 months.ConclusionsIncreased time to colonoscopy is associated with higher risk of CRC incidence, death, and late-stage CRC after abnormal FIT/FOBT. Interventions to improve CRC outcomes should emphasize diagnostic follow-up within 1 year of an abnormal FIT/FOBT result.

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.ObjectiveTo update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

BACKGROUND: How clinical teams function varies across sites and may affect follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. AIMS: This study aimed to identify the characteristics of clinical practices associated with higher diagnostic colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result in a multi-site integrated safety-net system. METHODS: We distributed survey questionnaires about tracking and follow-up of abnormal FIT results to primary care team members across 11 safety-net clinics from January 2017 to April 2017. Surveys were distributed at all-staff clinic meetings and electronic surveys sent to those not in attendance. Participants received up to three reminders to complete the survey. RESULTS: Of the 501 primary care team members identified, 343 (68.5%) completed the survey. In the four highest-performing clinics, nurse managers identified at least two team members who were responsible for communicating abnormal FIT results to patients. Additionally, team members used a clinic-based registry to track patients with abnormal FIT results until colonoscopy completion. Compared to higher-performing clinics, lower-performing clinics more frequently cited competing health issues (56% vs. 40%, p = 0.03) and lack of patient priority (59% vs. 37%, p

ObjectiveColorectal cancer screening programs frequently report problems ensuring adequate follow-up of positive fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). We investigated strategies implemented by ongoing screening programs to improve follow-up for FIT-positive participants, and explored associations between interventions and reported rates of follow-up.MethodsWe submitted an electronic survey to 58 colorectal cancer screening programs or affiliated researchers. Primary outcomes were the proportion of program participants with a positive FIT completing diagnostic colonoscopy, and patient, provider, and system-level interventions used to improve follow-up. We compare mean colonoscopy completion at six months in programs with and without interventions.ResultsThirty-five programs completed the survey (60% response). The mean proportion of participants with a positive FIT who completed colonoscopy was 79% (standard deviation 16%). Programs used a mean of five interventions to improve follow-up. Programs using patient navigators had an 11% higher rate of colonoscopy completion at six months (p = 0.05). Programs sending reminders to primary care providers when no colonoscopy has been completed had a 12% higher rate of colonoscopy completion (p = 0.03). Other interventions were not associated with significant differences.ConclusionsAlmost all programs employ multiple interventions to ensure timely follow-up of positive FIT. The use of patient navigators and provider reminders is associated with higher rates of colonoscopy completion.

BackgroundHow clinical teams function varies across sites and may affect follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results.AimsThis study aimed to identify the characteristics of clinical practices associated with higher diagnostic colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result in a multi-site integrated safety-net system.MethodsWe distributed survey questionnaires about tracking and follow-up of abnormal FIT results to primary care team members across 11 safety-net clinics from January 2017 to April 2017. Surveys were distributed at all-staff clinic meetings and electronic surveys sent to those not in attendance. Participants received up to three reminders to complete the survey.ResultsOf the 501 primary care team members identified, 343 (68.5%) completed the survey. In the four highest-performing clinics, nurse managers identified at least two team members who were responsible for communicating abnormal FIT results to patients. Additionally, team members used a clinic-based registry to track patients with abnormal FIT results until colonoscopy completion. Compared to higher-performing clinics, lower-performing clinics more frequently cited competing health issues (56% vs. 40%, p = 0.03) and lack of patient priority (59% vs. 37%, p

BackgroundHow clinical teams function varies across sites and may affect follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results.AimsThis study aimed to identify the characteristics of clinical practices associated with higher diagnostic colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result in a multi-site integrated safety-net system.MethodsWe distributed survey questionnaires about tracking and follow-up of abnormal FIT results to primary care team members across 11 safety-net clinics from January 2017 to April 2017. Surveys were distributed at all-staff clinic meetings and electronic surveys sent to those not in attendance. Participants received up to three reminders to complete the survey.ResultsOf the 501 primary care team members identified, 343 (68.5%) completed the survey. In the four highest-performing clinics, nurse managers identified at least two team members who were responsible for communicating abnormal FIT results to patients. Additionally, team members used a clinic-based registry to track patients with abnormal FIT results until colonoscopy completion. Compared to higher-performing clinics, lower-performing clinics more frequently cited competing health issues (56% vs. 40%, p = 0.03) and lack of patient priority (59% vs. 37%, p

BackgroundThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the second most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality in the United States; yet, follow-up of abnormal FIT results with diagnostic colonoscopy is underutilized. Our objective was to determine patient-reported barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy following abnormal FIT in an academic healthcare setting.MethodsWe included patients age 50-75 with an abnormal FIT result between 1/1/2015 and 10/31/2017 and no documented follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy. We abstracted demographic data from the electronic health record (EHR). Study personnel conducted telephone surveys with patients to confirm colonoscopy completion and elicit data on notification of FIT results and barriers to colonoscopy. We also provided brief verbal education about diagnostic colonoscopy. We calculated frequencies of demographic data and survey responses and compared survey responses by interest in colonoscopy after education.ResultsWe surveyed 67 patients. Fifty-one were aware of the abnormal FIT result, and a majority learned of the abnormal FIT result by direct communication with providers (19, 37.3%) or EHR messaging (11, 21.6%). Overall, fifty-three patients (79.1%) confirmed lack of colonoscopy, citing provider-related (19, 35.8%), patient-related (16, 30.2%), system-related (1, 1.9%), or multifactorial (17, 32.1%) reasons. Lack of knowledge of FIT result (14, 26.4%) was most common. After brief education, 20 (37.7%) patients requested colonoscopy.ConclusionPatients with an abnormal FIT reported various multi-level barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal FIT, including knowledge of FIT results. When provided with brief education, participants expressed interest in diagnostic colonoscopy. Future efforts will evaluate interventions to improve colonoscopy follow-up.

BackgroundExisting diagnostic methods for the parasitic gastrointestinal nematode, Haemonchus contortus, are time consuming and require specialised expertise, limiting their utility in the field. A practical, on-farm diagnostic tool could facilitate timely treatment decisions, thereby preventing losses in production and flock welfare. We previously demonstrated the ability of visible-near-infrared (Vis-NIR) spectroscopy to detect and quantify blood in sheep faeces with high accuracy. Here we report our investigation of whether variation in sheep type and environment affect the prediction accuracy of Vis-NIR spectroscopy in quantifying blood in faeces.MethodsVisible-NIR spectra were obtained from worm-free sheep faeces collected from different environments and sheep types in South Australia (SA) and New South Wales, Australia and spiked with various sheep blood concentrations. Spectra were analysed using principal component analysis (PCA), and calibration models were built around the haemoglobin (Hb) wavelength region (387-609 nm) using partial least squares regression. Models were used to predict Hb concentrations in spiked faeces from SA and naturally infected sheep faeces from Queensland (QLD). Samples from QLD were quantified using Hemastix® test strip and FAMACHA© diagnostic test scores.ResultsPrincipal component analysis showed that location, class of sheep and pooled versus individual samples were factors affecting the Hb predictions. The models successfully differentiated 'healthy' SA samples from those requiring anthelmintic treatment with moderate to good prediction accuracy (sensitivity 57-94%, specificity 44-79%). The models were not predictive for blood in the naturally infected QLD samples, which may be due in part to variability of faecal background and blood chemistry between samples, or the difference in validation methods used for blood quantification. PCA of the QLD samples, however, identified a difference between samples containing high and low quantities of blood.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of Vis-NIR spectroscopy for estimating blood concentration in faeces from various types of sheep and environmental backgrounds. However, the calibration models developed here did not capture sufficient environmental variation to accurately predict Hb in faeces collected from environments different to those used in the calibration model. Consequently, it will be necessary to establish models that incorporate samples that are more representative of areas where H. contortus is endemic.

BackgroundPhone calls as part of multimodal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach are effective but resource-intensive. Previous studies of advanced notification calls before FIT mailing have not differentiated patients' prior screening status.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a phone call preceding mailing of a FIT kit on test completion rate for patients who have completed a prior FIT.DesignRandomized controlled trial nested within a larger study. All patients were assigned to receive organized mailed FIT outreach in the larger study.ParticipantsPatients in a safety-net health setting ages 50-75 years old with a previously negative FIT.InterventionsPatients were assigned to either receive an advanced notification phone call or no phone call preceding a mailed FIT kit. Both groups received an informational postcard prior to the mailed FIT.Main measuresThe primary outcome was FIT completion rate at 1 year. The secondary outcomes were FIT completion rates at 60, 90, and 180 days, rates stratified by demographic subgroups, and rates according to outcome of the phone call.Key resultsA total of 1645 patients were assigned to advanced notification calls and 1595 were assigned to no call preceding the FIT mailing. Although FIT completion rate was higher at day 60 (55.5% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.01), an advanced notification call did not significantly improve FIT completion at 1 year (70.9% vs. 69.9%, p = 0.52). Of the patients assigned to receive an advanced notification call, 90.5% were spoken with or left a voicemail; patients who were spoken with were more likely to complete a FIT at 1 year compared with patients who were only left a voicemail or could not be left a voicemail (79.9% vs. 69.2% vs. 49.6%, p < 0.01).ConclusionsAdvanced notification phone calls prior to FIT mailing did not improve rates at 1 year for patients with a previously negative FIT.

BackgroundPhone calls as part of multimodal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach are effective but resource-intensive. Previous studies of advanced notification calls before FIT mailing have not differentiated patients' prior screening status.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a phone call preceding mailing of a FIT kit on test completion rate for patients who have completed a prior FIT.DesignRandomized controlled trial nested within a larger study. All patients were assigned to receive organized mailed FIT outreach in the larger study.ParticipantsPatients in a safety-net health setting ages 50-75 years old with a previously negative FIT.InterventionsPatients were assigned to either receive an advanced notification phone call or no phone call preceding a mailed FIT kit. Both groups received an informational postcard prior to the mailed FIT.Main measuresThe primary outcome was FIT completion rate at 1 year. The secondary outcomes were FIT completion rates at 60, 90, and 180 days, rates stratified by demographic subgroups, and rates according to outcome of the phone call.Key resultsA total of 1645 patients were assigned to advanced notification calls and 1595 were assigned to no call preceding the FIT mailing. Although FIT completion rate was higher at day 60 (55.5% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.01), an advanced notification call did not significantly improve FIT completion at 1 year (70.9% vs. 69.9%, p = 0.52). Of the patients assigned to receive an advanced notification call, 90.5% were spoken with or left a voicemail; patients who were spoken with were more likely to complete a FIT at 1 year compared with patients who were only left a voicemail or could not be left a voicemail (79.9% vs. 69.2% vs. 49.6%, p < 0.01).ConclusionsAdvanced notification phone calls prior to FIT mailing did not improve rates at 1 year for patients with a previously negative FIT.

BackgroundIn middle-income countries, the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in parallel with resources for diagnosis and treatment. There is a potential benefit of CRC screening programs in Mexico.ObjectiveSince there are no organized screening programs in the country, we explored the willingness of individuals to complete a faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) based CRC screening program and its potential benefit in Mexico.MethodsWe conducted a CRC screening program pilot in Veracruz, Mexico, during 2015-16 using FIT. Individuals with FIT results >100 ng of haemoglobin/ml buffer were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy.ResultsOf 473 FIT kits distributed to adults aged 50-75, 85.8% (406) were completed by participants and analysed in the laboratory. Of these, 5.9% (24/406) of test results showed >100 ng haemoglobin/ml. Twenty-one participants completed colonoscopy. The positive predictive value of FIT >100 ng haemoglobin/ml for premalignant lesions was 33%.ConclusionThese results provide preliminary evidence of the willingness of individuals to complete FIT-based CRC screening program in Mexico. However, further evaluation of health systems resources will be needed prior to large-scale implementation of CRC screening programs.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

BackgroundIn middle-income countries, the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing in parallel with resources for diagnosis and treatment. There is a potential benefit of CRC screening programs in Mexico.ObjectiveSince there are no organized screening programs in the country, we explored the willingness of individuals to complete a faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) based CRC screening program and its potential benefit in Mexico.MethodsWe conducted a CRC screening program pilot in Veracruz, Mexico, during 2015-16 using FIT. Individuals with FIT results >100 ng of haemoglobin/ml buffer were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy.ResultsOf 473 FIT kits distributed to adults aged 50-75, 85.8% (406) were completed by participants and analysed in the laboratory. Of these, 5.9% (24/406) of test results showed >100 ng haemoglobin/ml. Twenty-one participants completed colonoscopy. The positive predictive value of FIT >100 ng haemoglobin/ml for premalignant lesions was 33%.ConclusionThese results provide preliminary evidence of the willingness of individuals to complete FIT-based CRC screening program in Mexico. However, further evaluation of health systems resources will be needed prior to large-scale implementation of CRC screening programs.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains one of the most common and deadly malignancies despite advancements in screening, diagnostic capabilities, and treatment. The ability to detect and remove precancerous and cancerous lesions via screening has altered the epidemiology of the disease, decreasing incidence, mortality, and late-stage disease presentation. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a screening test that aims to detect human hemoglobin in the stool. FIT is the most common CRC screening modality worldwide and second most common in the United States. Its use in screening programs has been shown to increase screening uptake and improve CRC outcomes. However, FIT-based screening programs vary widely in quality and effectiveness. In health systems with high-quality FIT screening programs, only superior FIT formats are used, providers order FIT appropriately, annual patient participation is high, and diagnostic follow-up after an abnormal result is achieved in a timely manner. Proper utilization of FIT involves multiple steps beyond provider recommendation of the test. In this commentary, we aim to highlight ongoing challenges in FIT screening and suggest interventions to maximize FIT effectiveness. Through active engagement of patients and providers, health systems can use FIT to help optimize CRC screening rates and improve CRC outcomes.

BackgroundThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the second most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality in the United States; yet, follow-up of abnormal FIT results with diagnostic colonoscopy is underutilized. Our objective was to determine patient-reported barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy following abnormal FIT in an academic healthcare setting.MethodsWe included patients age 50-75 with an abnormal FIT result between 1/1/2015 and 10/31/2017 and no documented follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy. We abstracted demographic data from the electronic health record (EHR). Study personnel conducted telephone surveys with patients to confirm colonoscopy completion and elicit data on notification of FIT results and barriers to colonoscopy. We also provided brief verbal education about diagnostic colonoscopy. We calculated frequencies of demographic data and survey responses and compared survey responses by interest in colonoscopy after education.ResultsWe surveyed 67 patients. Fifty-one were aware of the abnormal FIT result, and a majority learned of the abnormal FIT result by direct communication with providers (19, 37.3%) or EHR messaging (11, 21.6%). Overall, fifty-three patients (79.1%) confirmed lack of colonoscopy, citing provider-related (19, 35.8%), patient-related (16, 30.2%), system-related (1, 1.9%), or multifactorial (17, 32.1%) reasons. Lack of knowledge of FIT result (14, 26.4%) was most common. After brief education, 20 (37.7%) patients requested colonoscopy.ConclusionPatients with an abnormal FIT reported various multi-level barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal FIT, including knowledge of FIT results. When provided with brief education, participants expressed interest in diagnostic colonoscopy. Future efforts will evaluate interventions to improve colonoscopy follow-up.

Background & aimsNoninvasive tests used in colorectal cancer screening, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), are more acceptable but detect neoplasias with lower levels of sensitivity than colonoscopy. We investigated whether lowering the cut-off concentration of hemoglobin for designation as an abnormal FIT result increased the detection of advanced neoplasia in a mailed outreach program.MethodsWe performed a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, age 50 to 64 years, who were not current with screening and enrolled in a safety-net system in Texas. We reduced the cut-off value for an abnormal FIT result from 20 or more to 10 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces a priori. All patients with abnormal FIT results were offered no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy. We compared proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results and neoplasia yield for standard vs lower cut-off values, as well as absolute hemoglobin concentration distribution among 5838 persons who completed the FIT. Our primary aim was to determine the effects of implementing a lower hemoglobin concentration cut-off value on colonoscopy demand and yield, specifically colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced neoplasia detection, compared with the standard, higher, hemoglobin concentration cut-off value.ResultsThe proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results were 12.3% at the 10 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces and 6.6% at the standard 20 or more μg hemoglobin/g feces cut-off value (P = .0013). Detection rates for the lower vs the standard threshold were 10.2% vs 12.7% for advanced neoplasia (P = .12) and 0.9% vs 1.2% for CRC (P = .718). The positive predictive values were 18.9% for the lower threshold vs 24.4% for the standard threshold for advanced neoplasia (P = .053), and 1.7% vs 2.4% for CRC (P = .659). The number needed to screen to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia was 45 at the lower threshold compared with 58 at the standard threshold; the number needed to scope to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia increased from 4 to 5. Most patients with CRC (72.7%) or advanced adenoma (67.3%) had hemoglobin concentrations of 20 or more μg/g feces. In the group with 10 to 19 μg hemoglobin/g feces, there were 3 patients with CRC (3 of 11; 27.3%) and 36 with advanced adenoma (36 of 110; 32.7%) who would not have been detected at the standard positive threshold (advanced neoplasia Pcomparison < .001). The proportion of patients found to have no neoplasia after an abnormal FIT result (false positives) was not significantly higher with the lower cut-off value (44.4%) than the standard cut-off value (39.1%) (P = .1103).ConclusionsIn a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, we found that reducing the abnormal FIT result cut-off value (to ≥10 μg hemoglobin/g feces) might increase detection of advanced neoplasia, but doubled the proportion of patients requiring a diagnostic colonoscopy. If colonoscopy capacity permits, health systems that use quantitative FITs should consider lowering the abnormal cut-off value to optimize CRC detection and prevention. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01946282.).

Screening with fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) reduces colorectal cancer mortality. Failure to complete repeat tests may compromise screening effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of repeat FOBT across diverse health care settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from 1997 to 2017 and reported repeat FOBT over ≥2 screening rounds. Studies (n = 27 reported in 35 articles) measured repeat FOBT as (i) proportion of Round 1 participants completing repeat FOBT in Round 2; (ii) proportion completing two, consecutive FOBT; or (iii) proportion completing ≥3 rounds. Among those who completed FOBT in Round 1, 24.6% to 89.6% completed repeat FOBT in Round 2 [median: 82.0%; interquartile range (IQR): 73.7%-84.6%]. The proportion completing FOBT in two rounds ranged from 16.4% to 80.0% (median: 46.6%; IQR: 40.5%-50.0%), and in studies examining ≥3 rounds, repeat FOBT ranged from 0.8% to 64.1% (median: 39.2%; IQR: 19.7%-49.4%). Repeat FOBT appeared higher in mailed outreach (69.1%-89.6%) compared with opportunistic screening (24.6%-48.6%). Few studies examined correlates of repeat FOBT. In summary, we observed a wide prevalence of repeat FOBT, and prevalence generally declined in successive screening rounds. Interventions that increase and maintain participation in FOBT are needed to optimize effectiveness of this screening strategy.

BackgroundFor colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to improve survival, patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) must follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy. Adherence to follow-up is low and patient-level barriers for suboptimal adherence have yet to be explored.ObjectiveTo characterize barriers for non-completion of diagnostic colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT reported by under- and uninsured patients receiving care in a safety-net health system.DesignA longitudinal, cohort study of CRC screening outreach to 8565 patients using mailed FIT kits. Patients with abnormal FIT results received telephonic navigation to arrange for a no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy.PatientsAdults aged 50-64 years receiving care at a North Texas safety-net health system.ApproachDescriptive analyses characterized the patient sample and reasons for lack of follow-up after abnormal FIT over the 3-year outreach program. Thematic qualitative analyses characterized reasons for lack of follow-up with a colonoscopy after the abnormal FIT.Key resultsOf 689 patients with an abnormal FIT, 45% (n = 314) did not complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Among the 314 non-completers, 184 patients reported reasons for not completing a follow-up colonoscopy included health insurance-related challenges (38%), comorbid conditions (37%), social barriers such as transportation difficulties and lack of social support (29%), concerns about FIT/colonoscopy process (12%), competing life priorities (12%), adverse effects of bowel preparation (3%), and poor health literacy (3%). Among the 314 non-completers, 131 patients did not report a barrier, as 51% reported that that had completed a previous colonoscopy in the past 10 years, 10% refused with no reason, and 10% were never reached by phone.ConclusionsFuture studies aimed at improving FIT screening and subsequent colonoscopy rates need to address the unique needs of patients for effective and sustainable screening programs.Trial registrationNCT01946282.

BackgroundFor colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to improve survival, patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) must follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy. Adherence to follow-up is low and patient-level barriers for suboptimal adherence have yet to be explored.ObjectiveTo characterize barriers for non-completion of diagnostic colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT reported by under- and uninsured patients receiving care in a safety-net health system.DesignA longitudinal, cohort study of CRC screening outreach to 8565 patients using mailed FIT kits. Patients with abnormal FIT results received telephonic navigation to arrange for a no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy.PatientsAdults aged 50-64 years receiving care at a North Texas safety-net health system.ApproachDescriptive analyses characterized the patient sample and reasons for lack of follow-up after abnormal FIT over the 3-year outreach program. Thematic qualitative analyses characterized reasons for lack of follow-up with a colonoscopy after the abnormal FIT.Key resultsOf 689 patients with an abnormal FIT, 45% (n = 314) did not complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Among the 314 non-completers, 184 patients reported reasons for not completing a follow-up colonoscopy included health insurance-related challenges (38%), comorbid conditions (37%), social barriers such as transportation difficulties and lack of social support (29%), concerns about FIT/colonoscopy process (12%), competing life priorities (12%), adverse effects of bowel preparation (3%), and poor health literacy (3%). Among the 314 non-completers, 131 patients did not report a barrier, as 51% reported that that had completed a previous colonoscopy in the past 10 years, 10% refused with no reason, and 10% were never reached by phone.ConclusionsFuture studies aimed at improving FIT screening and subsequent colonoscopy rates need to address the unique needs of patients for effective and sustainable screening programs.Trial registrationNCT01946282.

This study examined factors related to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake among Thais in the United States. A total of 121 Thais between 50 and 75 years of age, who were married and living in southern California participated in the survey (mean age = 61 years). Out of all the participants, only 21% of the participants had fecal occult blood tests, 21% had sigmoidoscopy, and 45% had colonoscopy that were within the recommended period. Overall, 55% of participants met CRC screening adherence criteria. Participants who had had regular checkups in the previous 2 years without having any symptoms were 16 times more likely to have obtained CRC screening than their counterparts (OR 16.01, CI 3.75-68.75) in the multivariable logistic regression model. Other significant predictors of screening adherence included older age (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.17), having lived in the U.S. 15 years or longer (OR 6.65, 95% CI 1.55-28.59), having had at least some college education (OR 3.74, 95% CI 1.23-11.37), and higher levels of perceived self-efficacy (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.01-3.50) to obtain CRC screening. Targeted interventions for Thais who are less likely receive CRC screening could be effective in improving CRC screening. Interventions to improve the populations' awareness of the importance of preventive measures when they are not sick could be also effective.

OBJECTIVES:The effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening for colorectal cancer depends on timely colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, although limited data exist regarding effective system-level strategies for improving follow-up rates. METHODS:Using a mixed-methods design (qualitative and quantitative), we first identified system-level strategies that were implemented for improving timely follow-up after a positive FIT test in a large community-based setting between 2006 and 2016. We then evaluated changes in time to colonoscopy among FIT-positive patients across 3 periods during the study interval, controlling for screening participant age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, FIT date, and previous screening history. RESULTS:Implemented strategies over the study period included setting a goal of colonoscopy follow-up within 30 days of a positive FIT, tracking FIT-positive patients, early telephone contact to directly schedule follow-up colonoscopies, assigning the responsibility for follow-up tracking and scheduling to gastroenterology departments (vs primary care), and increasing colonoscopy capacity. Among 160,051 patients who had a positive FIT between 2006 and 2016, 126,420 (79%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days, including 67% in 2006-2008, 79% in 2009-2012, and 83% in 2013-2016 (P < 0.001). Follow-up within 180 days in 2016 varied moderately across service areas, between 72% (95% CI 70-75) and 88% (95% CI 86-91), but there were no obvious differences in the pattern of strategies implemented in higher- vs lower-performing service areas. CONCLUSIONS:The implementation of system-level strategies coincided with substantial improvements in timely colonoscopy follow-up after a positive FIT. Intervention studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies for promoting timely follow-up.

OBJECTIVES:The effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening for colorectal cancer depends on timely colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, although limited data exist regarding effective system-level strategies for improving follow-up rates. METHODS:Using a mixed-methods design (qualitative and quantitative), we first identified system-level strategies that were implemented for improving timely follow-up after a positive FIT test in a large community-based setting between 2006 and 2016. We then evaluated changes in time to colonoscopy among FIT-positive patients across 3 periods during the study interval, controlling for screening participant age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, FIT date, and previous screening history. RESULTS:Implemented strategies over the study period included setting a goal of colonoscopy follow-up within 30 days of a positive FIT, tracking FIT-positive patients, early telephone contact to directly schedule follow-up colonoscopies, assigning the responsibility for follow-up tracking and scheduling to gastroenterology departments (vs primary care), and increasing colonoscopy capacity. Among 160,051 patients who had a positive FIT between 2006 and 2016, 126,420 (79%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days, including 67% in 2006-2008, 79% in 2009-2012, and 83% in 2013-2016 (P < 0.001). Follow-up within 180 days in 2016 varied moderately across service areas, between 72% (95% CI 70-75) and 88% (95% CI 86-91), but there were no obvious differences in the pattern of strategies implemented in higher- vs lower-performing service areas. CONCLUSIONS:The implementation of system-level strategies coincided with substantial improvements in timely colonoscopy follow-up after a positive FIT. Intervention studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies for promoting timely follow-up.

Despite clear evidence that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces mortality, screening, including fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), is underutilized. We conducted a systematic review to determine the evidence of efficacy of interventions to improve FIT completion that could be scaled and utilized in population health management. We systematically searched publication databases for studies evaluating provider- or system-level interventions to improve CRC screening by FIT between 1 January 1996 and 13 December 2017 without language restrictions. Twenty articles describing 25 studies were included, 23 were randomized controlled trials with 1 quasi-experimental and 1 observational study. Ten studies discussed mailed FIT outreach, 4 pre-FIT patient reminders, 3 tailored patient messages, 2 post-FIT reminders, 2 paired FIT with influenza vaccinations, 2 provider alerts and 1 study each described the use of high-quality small media and patient financial incentives. Mailed FIT outreach was consistently effective with median improvement in CRC screening of 21.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 13.6%-29.0%). FIT paired with vaccinations led to a median 15.9% (IQR 15.6%-16.3%) improvement, while pre-FIT and post-FIT reminders demonstrated modest efficacy with median 4.1% (IQR 3.6%-6.7%) and 3.1% (IQR 2.9%-3.3%) improvement in CRC screening, respectively. More than half the studies were at high or unclear risk of bias; heterogeneous study designs and characteristics precluded meta-analysis. FIT-based CRC screening programs utilizing multilevel interventions (e.g. mailed FIT outreach, FIT paired with other preventative services, and provider alerts) have the potential to significantly increase screening participation. However, such programs must also follow-up patients with abnormal FIT results.

Chinese Americans have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. It is unclear whether physicians should offer all CRC screening modalities (fecal occult blood test [FOBT], sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy) to Chinese Americans to increase screening. Seven hundred and twenty-five Chinese Americans were asked in a survey if their physician had ever recommended CRC screening and to self-report receipt and type of CRC screening. Participants whose physician had recommended all CRC screening modalities were significantly more likely to report ever having screening (adjusted odds ratio 4.29, 95% CI 1.26-14.68) and being up-to-date (4.06, 95% CI 2.13-7.74) than those who reported that their physician only recommended FOBT. Participants who received a recommendation of only one type of screening did not report a significant difference in ever having or being up-to-date for screening. A potential strategy to increase CRC screening among Chinese Americans is for clinicians to recommend all available CRC screening modalities to each patient.

Chinese Americans have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. It is unclear whether physicians should offer all CRC screening modalities (fecal occult blood test [FOBT], sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy) to Chinese Americans to increase screening. Seven hundred and twenty-five Chinese Americans were asked in a survey if their physician had ever recommended CRC screening and to self-report receipt and type of CRC screening. Participants whose physician had recommended all CRC screening modalities were significantly more likely to report ever having screening (adjusted odds ratio 4.29, 95% CI 1.26-14.68) and being up-to-date (4.06, 95% CI 2.13-7.74) than those who reported that their physician only recommended FOBT. Participants who received a recommendation of only one type of screening did not report a significant difference in ever having or being up-to-date for screening. A potential strategy to increase CRC screening among Chinese Americans is for clinicians to recommend all available CRC screening modalities to each patient.

Colorectal cancer, the second leading cause of mortality in the USA, can be prevented with colorectal cancer screening. However, many people who should receive the screening do not get screened. To learn more, this study estimated the prevalence of up-to-date colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and examined the relationship between CRC knowledge and screening compliance among Asian Americans living in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan area. The study included a cross-sectional sample of 274 Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese Americans aged 50-75 years old. Participants completed a questionnaire regarding CRC knowledge in either their preferred native language or in English, and data were collected in person. The percentage of total participants with up-to-date overall CRC screening was 52.9%. Up-to-date fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening was 15.0% and colonoscopy was 50.7%. The average CRC knowledge score was 6.10 out of 9 (SD = 2.91). Those with high education, high English proficiency, married, health insurance, and good physical health ratings had higher CRC knowledge. In multivariate analysis, CRC knowledge was significantly correlated with increasing up-to-date colonoscopy (aOR = 2.74, 1.13-6.64). Having health insurance (aOR = 4.40, 2.33-8.32) was another predictor of up-to-date colonoscopy. These findings suggest that CRC knowledge is a strong predictor of CRC screening behavior in Asian American populations. Lack of CRC screening knowledge still remains an important barrier to screening, and increased public awareness is necessary to achieve greater screening compliance.

BackgroundLong-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test.MethodsForty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4-5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used.ResultsThemes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test.ConclusionFuture CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence.Trial registrationPrimary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047 .

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

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among Korean American men and women. Although CRC screening is effective in reducing the burden of this disease, studies have shown that Korean Americans have low screening rates.MethodsThe authors conducted a 2-arm cluster randomized controlled trial comparing a brochure (print) with a brochure and lay health educator (LHE) outreach (print + LHE) in increasing CRC screening rates among Korean American individuals. Self-administered written surveys at baseline and at 6 months assessed knowledge of CRC and its screening, ever screening, and being up to date with screening.ResultsA total of 28 LHEs recruited 348 participants aged 50 to 75 years from their social networks. Significant percentages of participants reported not having health insurance (29.3%) or a usual source of care (35.6%). At 6 months postintervention, the print + LHE participants had a greater increase in knowledge compared with those in the print arm (P = .0013). In multivariable analyses, both groups had significant increases in ever screening (print plus LHE: odds ratio [OR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.26-2.03] and print: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.10-1.82]) and being up to date with screening (print plus LHE: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.23-2.16] and print: OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.04-1.89]). However, these increases did not differ significantly between the study arms. Having insurance and having seen a provider within the past year were found to be positively associated with screening.ConclusionsCompared with a brochure, LHE outreach yielded greater increases in knowledge but resulted in similar increases in CRC screening in a Korean American population with barriers to health care access. More work is needed to appropriately address logistical and system barriers in this community. Cancer 2017;123:2705-15. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among Korean American men and women. Although CRC screening is effective in reducing the burden of this disease, studies have shown that Korean Americans have low screening rates.MethodsThe authors conducted a 2-arm cluster randomized controlled trial comparing a brochure (print) with a brochure and lay health educator (LHE) outreach (print + LHE) in increasing CRC screening rates among Korean American individuals. Self-administered written surveys at baseline and at 6 months assessed knowledge of CRC and its screening, ever screening, and being up to date with screening.ResultsA total of 28 LHEs recruited 348 participants aged 50 to 75 years from their social networks. Significant percentages of participants reported not having health insurance (29.3%) or a usual source of care (35.6%). At 6 months postintervention, the print + LHE participants had a greater increase in knowledge compared with those in the print arm (P = .0013). In multivariable analyses, both groups had significant increases in ever screening (print plus LHE: odds ratio [OR], 1.60 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.26-2.03] and print: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.10-1.82]) and being up to date with screening (print plus LHE: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.23-2.16] and print: OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.04-1.89]). However, these increases did not differ significantly between the study arms. Having insurance and having seen a provider within the past year were found to be positively associated with screening.ConclusionsCompared with a brochure, LHE outreach yielded greater increases in knowledge but resulted in similar increases in CRC screening in a Korean American population with barriers to health care access. More work is needed to appropriately address logistical and system barriers in this community. Cancer 2017;123:2705-15. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

BackgroundThe ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms.MethodsWe used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity.ResultsCompared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300.InterpretationCompared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

BackgroundThe ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms.MethodsWe used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity.ResultsCompared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300.InterpretationCompared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134,000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49,000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 68 years.ObjectiveTo update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer.Evidence reviewThe USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods.FindingsThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screening strategies are available to choose from, with different levels of evidence to support their effectiveness, as well as unique advantages and limitations, although there are no empirical data to demonstrate that any of the reviewed strategies provide a greater net benefit. Screening for colorectal cancer is a substantially underused preventive health strategy in the United States.Conclusions and recommendationsThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient's overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134,000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49,000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 68 years.ObjectiveTo update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer.Evidence reviewThe USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods.FindingsThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screening strategies are available to choose from, with different levels of evidence to support their effectiveness, as well as unique advantages and limitations, although there are no empirical data to demonstrate that any of the reviewed strategies provide a greater net benefit. Screening for colorectal cancer is a substantially underused preventive health strategy in the United States.Conclusions and recommendationsThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient's overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).