Search

Background: Colorectal 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. Methods: A 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. Results: Among 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). Conclusions: A regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low‐income populations. The results of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in three community health center systems show that among 26,736 randomized patients, a regional mailed fecal immunochemical test intervention conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was effective for increasing colorectal cancer screening. Effectiveness was shown across multiple demographic groups, including Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations, as well as Spanish‐speaking individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study examined repeat colorectal cancer screening rates at 12 and 24 months as part of a randomized intervention trial among Black persons living in the United States and factors associated with screening adherence. Methods: Participants completed a survey assessing demographics and Preventive Health Model (PHM) factors (e.g., self efficacy, susceptibility) and received either a culturally targeted photonovella plus free fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits (intervention group) or a standard educational brochure plus free FIT kits (comparison group). FIT return was assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months. Descriptive statistics summarized patterns of repeat screening. Logistic regression models assessed FIT uptake overtime, and demographic and PHM factors associated with screening adherence. Results: Participants (N = 330) were U.S.‐born (93%), non‐Hispanic (97%), and male (52%). Initial FIT uptake within 6 months of enrollment was 86.6%, and subsequently dropped to 54.5% at 12 months and 36.6% at 24 months. Higher FIT return rates were observed for the brochure group at 24 months (51.5% vs 33.3% photonovella, p =.023). Multiple patterns of FIT kit return were observed: 37% completed FIT at all three time points (full adherence), 22% completed two of three (partial adherence), 29% completed one of three (partial adherence), and 12% did not return any FIT kits (complete nonadherence). Predictors of full adherence were higher levels of education and self‐efficacy. Conclusions: Full adherence to repeat screening was suboptimal. Most participants had partial adherence (one or two of three) to annual FIT screening. Future studies should focus on strategies to support repeat FIT screening. Findings indicate that adherence to repeat colorectal cancer screening was suboptimal, with only approximately 37% of study participants completing all three annual fecal immunochemical test screenings, and 22% completing two of three. Full adherence to screening was associated with higher levels of self‐efficacy and higher educational attainment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with colorectal polypectomy are recommended to undergo surveillance colonoscopies at certain intervals to prevent subsequent colorectal cancer. Use of postpolypectomy surveillance according to the 2006 US Multi‐Society Task Force (USMSTF) recommendations in an integrated health care system was investigated. Methods: Use of surveillance colonoscopies was prospectively assessed among 3691 patients with removal of high‐risk polyps at a screening colonoscopy during 2007–2012 in the Mass General Brigham Colonoscopy Cohort. With the follow‐up up to 2017, the compliance with, overuse, and underuse of postpolypectomy surveillance according to the 2006 USMSTF recommendations was assessed. Surveillance use according to demographic factors was also investigated. Results: During a median follow‐up of 4.4 years (5th percentile, 95th percentile, 1.0, 9.9) 2360 (64%) patients had undergone a surveillance colonoscopy, among whom 758 (21%) were considered compliant with the USMSTF recommendations. A substantial underuse of surveillance colonoscopies of 62% was observed. Older age and lower income were associated with a higher incidence of underuse, whereas having a family history of colorectal cancer were associated with lower incidence of underuse. Overuse of surveillance colonoscopies was present in 17% of patients but showed no significant associations with demographic factors. Conclusion: Substantial underuse of surveillance in patients with high‐risk polyps was observed, particularly those with low income and older age. Efforts are needed to improve delivery and use of surveillance colonoscopy. Plain Language Summary: The US Multi‐Society Task Force recommends follow‐up surveillance colonoscopy after polyp removal in the bowel, with intervals depending on the most severe findings.Adherence to surveillance recommendations in a large study with up to 10 years of follow‐up among patients with high‐risk polyps was investigated. Only 21% of patients adhered to the surveillance recommendations, whereas 62% showed delayed or no use of surveillance.Findings highlight the need for improved use of surveillance colonoscopy among patients at high risk of colorectal cancer. There was substantial noncompliance with the US Multi‐Society Task Force recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy among patients with high‐risk polyps. These findings highlight the need to improve the use of surveillance colonoscopies after polypectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internationally, colorectal cancer screening participation remains low despite the availability of home‐based testing and numerous interventions to increase uptake. To be effective, interventions should be based on an understanding of what influences individuals' decisions about screening participation. This study investigates the association of defensive information processing (DIP) with fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–based colorectal cancer screening uptake. Methods: Regression modeling of data from a cross‐sectional survey within a population‐based FIT screening program was conducted. The survey included the seven subdomains of the McQueen DIP measure. The primary outcome variable was the uptake status (screening user or nonuser). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for screening nonuse by DIP (sub)domain score, with adjustments made for sociodemographic and behavioral factors associated with uptake. Results: Higher scores (equating to greater defensiveness) on all DIP domains were significantly associated with lower uptake in the model adjusted for sociodemographic factors. In the model with additional adjustments for behavioral factors, the suppression subdomains of "deny immediacy to be tested" (OR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–0.65; p <.001) and "self‐exemption" (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68–0.96; p <.001) independently predicted nonuse of FIT‐based screening. Conclusions: This is the first study outside the United States that has identified DIP as a barrier to colorectal cancer screening uptake, and it is the first focused specifically on FIT‐based screening. The findings suggest that two suppression barriers, namely denying the immediacy to be tested and self‐exempting oneself from screening, may be promising targets for future interventions to improve uptake. Defensive information processing, in the form of suppression, is associated with lower fecal immunochemical test‐based colorectal cancer screening uptake. Two suppression barriers, denying the immediacy to be tested and self‐exempting oneself from screening, are promising targets for future interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer‐related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits. Methods: This prospective, national QI study on Return‐to‐Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap. Results: The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from –17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], –33.6% to –2.8%), –6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, –29.4% to 1.7%), –1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, –9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, –16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P =.02). Conclusion: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. Lay Summary: Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated?Findings: When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return‐to‐Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021.Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits. A national Return‐to‐Screening quality improvement study including 748 cancer facilities has found that the majority have local screening deficits due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, most notably in colorectal cancer. Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). Methods: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan–based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six‐month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program‐related health plan costs for each program are described. Results: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt‐in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%‐17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%‐16.2%]) in 2018 (P =.36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). Conclusions: An opt‐in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. Lay Summary: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing. In this study, a health insurance plan demonstrates its ability to deliver 2 different mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program models, with vendors used to manage some program elements. These mailed FIT programs began to close gaps in colorectal cancer screening rates in the health plan's dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funds the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in primary care clinics by implementing evidence‐based interventions (EBIs). This study examined differences in clinic characteristics and implementation efforts among clinics with differential changes in screening rates over time. Methods: CRCCP clinic data collected by the CDC were used. The outcome was the clinic status (highest quartile [Q4] vs lowest quartile [Q1]), which was based on the absolute screening rate change between the first and second program years. Five clinic characteristic variables and 12 clinic‐level CRCCP variables (eg, EBIs) were assessed in bivariable analyses, and logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of the outcome. Results: Each group included 78 clinics (N = 156). Clinics with a Q4 status saw a 14.9 percentage point increase in the screening rate, whereas clinics with a Q1 status experienced a 9.1 percentage point decline. Q4s were more likely than Q1s to have a CRC champion, implement 4 EBIs versus fewer EBIs, implement at least 1 new EBI, and increase the number of implemented EBIs. The adjusted odds of Q4 status were 5.3 times greater (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9‐14.9) if a clinic implemented an additional EBI. The adjusted odds of Q4 status increased to 7.1 (95% CI, 2.2‐23.1) if a clinic implemented 2 to 4 additional EBIs. Conclusions: Implementing new EBIs or enhancing existing ones improves CRC screening rates. Additionally, clinics with lower screening rates had greater rate increases and may have benefited more from the CRCCP. Implementing new evidence‐based interventions or enhancing existing ones improves colorectal cancer screening rates. Implementing these interventions can lead to a significant increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among low‐income, medically underserved populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk‐stratified colorectal cancer screening allows for pinpointing populations that need screening and reduces the need for expensive infrastructure for screening and follow‐up. Further research is needed to accelerate the use of risk‐based screening approaches for colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) kits for colorectal cancer screening at home can contribute to reaching national goals of 80% colorectal cancer screening in communities. Policies that support cost‐effective colorectal cancer screening programs would decrease colorectal cancer disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach.Methods: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter.Results: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard.Conclusions: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening rates for colorectal cancer have increased steadily in recent years among individuals aged 55 years and older but remain unacceptably low for younger individuals, especially those at an increased risk due to family history. Herein, the authors describe a novel lead time messaging program aimed at increasing on‐time screening for both average‐risk individuals and those at increased risk because of a family history of colorectal cancer or advanced adenomas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Significant disparities exist in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among those of low socioeconomic status, with fewer years of education, lacking health insurance, or living in rural areas.Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 2 follow-up approaches to a health literacy intervention to improve CRC screening: automated telephone call or personal call. Patients aged 50 to 75 years residing in 4 rural community clinics in Louisiana were given a structured interview that assessed demographic, health literacy and CRC screening barriers, knowledge, and attitudes. All were given health literacy-informed CRC education, a patient-friendly CRC screening pamphlet, simplified fecal immunochemical test (FIT) instructions, and a FIT kit, and a "teach-back" method was used to confirm understanding. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 telephone follow-up arms. If they did not mail their FIT kit within 4 weeks, they received a reminder call and were called again at 8 weeks if the test still was not received.Results: A total of 620 patients were enrolled. Approximately 55% were female, 66% were African American, and 40% had limited literacy. The overall FIT completion rate was 68%: 69.2% in the automated telephone call arm and 67% in the personal call arm. Greater than one-half of the patients (range, 58%-60%) returned the FIT kit without receiving a telephone call. There was no difference noted with regard to the effectiveness of the follow-up calls; each increased the return rate by 9%.Conclusions: Providing FIT kits and literacy-appropriate education at regularly scheduled clinic visits with a follow-up telephone call when needed was found to increase CRC screening among low-income, rural patients. The lower cost automated call was just as effective as the personal call. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underused. Screening rates are lower among Medicaid beneficiaries versus other insured populations. No studies have examined mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based outreach programs for Medicaid beneficiaries.Methods: In a patient-level randomized controlled trial, a mailed CRC screening reminder plus FIT, sent from an urban health department to Medicaid beneficiaries, was compared with the same reminder without FIT. The reminder group could request FIT. Completed FIT kits were processed by the health department laboratory. Respondents were notified of normal results by mail. Abnormal results were given via phone by a patient navigator who provided counselling and assistance with follow-up care. The primary outcome was FIT return.Results: In all, 2144 beneficiaries at average CRC risk were identified, and there was no evidence of screening with Medicaid claims data. To the reminder+FIT group, 1071 were randomized, and 1073 were randomized to the reminder group; 307 (28.7%) in the reminder+FIT group and 347 (32.3%) in the reminder group were unreachable or ineligible (previous screening). The FIT return rate was significantly higher in the reminder+FIT group than the reminder group (21.1% vs 12.3%; difference, 8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-13.9%; P < .01). Eighteen individuals (7.2%) who completed FIT tests had abnormal results, and 15 were eligible for follow-up colonoscopy; 66.7% (n = 10) completed follow-up colonoscopy.Conclusions: A health department-based, mailed FIT program targeting Medicaid beneficiaries was feasible. Including a FIT kit resulted in greater screening completion than a reminder letter alone. Further research is needed to understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among Chinese American individuals, only approximately 42% of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) are diagnosed at an early stage, possibly because these patients are less likely than non-Hispanic white individuals to undergo CRC screening.Methods: Primary care physicians (PCPs) were recruited from a local independent practice association serving Chinese Americans and randomized into early-intervention and delayed-intervention groups. PCPs in the early-intervention group received continuing medical education (CME), and their patients received an intervention mailer, consisting of a letter with the PCP's recommendation, a bilingual educational booklet, and a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kit in year 1. PCPs in the delayed-intervention group received no CME, and their patients received the mailers in year 2.Results: A total of 20 PCPs were assigned to the early-intervention and 22 PCPs to the delayed-intervention group. A total of 3120 patients of these participating PCPs who had undergone CRC screening that was due during the study period were included. A total of 915 mailers were sent in year 1 and 830 mailers were sent in year 2. FOBT screening rates increased from 26.7% at baseline to 58.5% in year 1 in the early-intervention group versus 19.6% at baseline to 22.2% in year 1 in the delayed-intervention group (P<.0001). The overall effect size of the mailer intervention with or without CME was estimated as a difference of 26.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 22.0-31.2 percentage points) from baseline compared with usual care. The intervention was found to have no impact on rates of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy.Conclusions: The results of the current pilot study demonstrated that a mailer including educational materials and FOBT kits can increase CRC screening rates with or without CME for the PCPs. Cancer 2018;124:1568-75. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To the authors' knowledge, there are few studies to date regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) beliefs, knowledge, and screening among multiple Asian American populations, who are reported to have lower CRC screening rates compared with white individuals. The current study was performed to assess knowledge and beliefs regarding the causes of CRC, its prevention, and factors associated with CRC screening among 3 Asian American groups.Methods: The authors conducted an in-language survey with Filipino (Honolulu, Hawaii), Hmong (Sacramento, California), and Korean (Los Angeles, California) Americans aged 50 to 75 years who were sampled through social networks. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with CRC screening.Results: The sample of 981 participants was 78.3% female and 73.8% reported limited proficiency in English. Few of the participants were aware that age (17.7%) or family history (36.3%) were risk factors for CRC; 6.2% believed fate caused CRC. Only 46.4% of participants knew that screening prevented CRC (74.3% of Filipino, 10.6% of Hmong, and 55.8% of Korean participants; P<.001). Approximately two-thirds of participants reported ever having undergone CRC screening (76.0% of Filipino, 72.0% of Hmong, and 51.4% of Korean participants; P<.001) and 48.6% were up to date for screening (62.2% of Filipino, 43.8% of Hmong, and 41.4% of Korean participants; P<.001). Factors found to be significantly associated with ever screening were being Korean (compared with Filipino), having a family history of CRC, having health insurance or a regular source of health care, and knowing that a fatty diet caused CRC. Believing that fate caused CRC and that praying prevented it were found to be negatively associated with ever screening. Factors associated with being up to date for CRC screening included being born in the United States, having a family history of CRC, and having access to health care.Conclusions: Knowledge regarding the causes of CRC and its prevention among Filipino, Hmong, and Korean individuals is low. However, health care access, not knowledge or beliefs, was found to be a key determinant of CRC screening. Cancer 2018;124:1552-9. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Asian American (AA) ethnic subgroups are diverse in socio-economic status, years in the United States, English proficiency, and cultures with different health seeking behaviors and health care access. Fifty-two percent of AAs age ≥50 years had colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) in 2013, compared with 61% of non-Hispanic whites. We hypothesized that CRCS prevalence among AA ethnicities is heterogeneous and that the reasons related to CRCS among AA subgroups are associated with demographic characteristics, acculturation, health care access, and health attitudes.Methods: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data for 2009-2014 compared CRCS status among whites (n = 28,834), Asian Indians (n = 466), Chinese (n = 652), and Filipinos (n = 788). Multivariate logistic regression examined ethnic differences and correlates of CRCS accounting for complex sampling design.Results: Whites had the highest prevalence of screening (62.3%), followed by Filipinos (55.0%), Chinese (50.9%), and Asian Indians (48.6%). Older age, having health insurance, and having a usual care provider predicted CRCS across all ethnicities. Different demographic, health care access, and health attitude predictors within each ethnic group were related to CRCS.Conclusion: This study contributes to the literature on influences of differential CRCS prevalence among AA subgroups. CRCS promotion should be tailored according to attitudes and structural barriers affecting screening behavior of specific ethnic subgroups to truly serve the health needs of the diverse AA population. Cancer 2018;124:1543-51. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including lower uptake rates among Hispanic Americans (HAs) and Asian Americans (AAs) relative to non-Hispanic white Americans. The objective of this study was to explore pathways associated with the use of health services and to characterize multifaceted associations with the uptake of CRC screening among HAs and AAs.Methods: Data were obtained from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2012-2013). Participants included HA (n = 3731) and AA (n = 1345) respondents ages 50 to 75 years who met CRC screening recommendations. A modified Andersen behavioral model was used to examine pathways that lead to CRC screening uptake, including predisposing characteristics (education, economic, and cultural factors), health insurance, health needs (perceived health status and several comorbidities), and health provider contextual factors (access to care, perceived quality of health services, and distrust in health care). Structural equation modeling was used to examine the models for HAs and AAs.Results: In the HA model, cultural factors (standardized regression coefficient [β] = -0.04; P = .013) and distrust in health care (β = -0.05; P = .007) directly and negatively affected CRC screening. Similarly, cultural factors (β = -0.11; P = .002) negatively affected CRC screening in the AA model, but distrust in health care was not significant (P = .103). In both models, perceived quality of health services was positively associated with CRC screening uptake and mediated the negative association between cultural factors and CRC screening. Access to care was not associated with CRC screening.Conclusions: Correlations between CRC screening and associated factors differ among HAs and AAs, suggesting a need for multilevel interventions tailored to race/ethnicity. The current findings suggest that facilitating access to care without improving perceived quality of health services may be ineffective for increasing the uptake of CRC screening among HAs and AAs. Cancer 2018;124:335-45. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low among underserved populations. High-quality patient-physician communication potentially influences patients' willingness to undergo CRC screening. Community health centers (HCs) provide comprehensive primary health care to underserved populations. This study's objectives were to ascertain national CRC screening rates and to explore the relations between sociodemographic characteristics and patient-provider communication on the receipt of CRC screening among HC patients.Methods: Using 2014 Health Center Patient Survey data, bivariate and multivariate analyses examined the association of sociodemographic variables (sex, race/ethnicity, age, geography, preferred language, household income, insurance, and employment status) and patient-provider communication with the receipt of CRC screening.Results: Patients between the ages of 65 and 75 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-4.64) and patients not in the labor force (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.37-3.94) had higher odds of receiving CRC screening, whereas patients who were uninsured (aOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.61) and patients who were non-English-speaking (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.99) had lower odds. Patient-provider communication was not associated with the receipt of CRC screening.Conclusions: The CRC screening rate for HC patients was 57.9%, whereas the rate was 65.1% according to the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and 58.2% according to the 2013 National Health Interview Survey. The high ratings of patient-provider communication, regardless of the screening status, suggest strides toward a patient-centered medical home practice transformation that will assist in a positive patient experience. Addressing the lack of insurance, making culturally and linguistically appropriate patient education materials available, and training clinicians and care teams in cultural competency are critical for increasing future CRC screening rates. Cancer 2017;123:4185-4192. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2014, a national campaign was launched to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018; it is unknown whether there is sufficient colonoscopy capacity to reach this goal. This study estimated the number of colonoscopies needed to screen 80% of the eligible population with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy and determined whether there was sufficient colonoscopy capacity to meet the need.Methods: The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to simulate CRC screening test use in the United States (2014-2040); the implementation of a national screening program in 2014 with FIT or colonoscopy with 80% participation was assumed. The 2012 Survey of Endoscopic Capacity (SECAP) estimated the number of colonoscopies that were performed and the number that could be performed.Results: If a national screening program started in 2014, by 2024, approximately 47 million FIT procedures and 5.1 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a program using FIT as the primary screening test; approximately 11 to 13 million colonoscopies would be needed annually to screen the eligible population with a colonoscopy-only screening program. According to the SECAP survey, an estimated 15 million colonoscopies were performed in 2012, and an additional 10.5 million colonoscopies could be performed.Conclusions: The estimated colonoscopy capacity is sufficient to screen 80% of the eligible US population with FIT, colonoscopy, or a mix of tests. Future analyses should take into account the geographic distribution of colonoscopy capacity. Cancer 2016;122:2479-86. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited by underuse, particularly among underserved populations. Among a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients, the authors compared the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase screening participation rates, compared with usual visit-based care.Methods: Patients aged 50 to 64 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening but used primary care services in a large safety-net health system were randomly assigned to mailed FIT outreach (2400 patients), mailed colonoscopy outreach (2400 patients), or usual care with opportunistic visit-based screening (1199 patients). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received follow-up telephone reminders. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months after randomization.Results: Baseline patient characteristics across the 3 groups were similar. Using intention-to-screen analysis, screening participation rates were higher for FIT outreach (58.8%) and colonoscopy outreach (42.4%) than usual care (29.6%) (P <.001 for both). Screening participation with FIT outreach was higher than that for colonoscopy outreach (P <.001). Among responders, FIT outreach had a higher percentage of patients who responded before reminders (59.0% vs 29.7%; P <.001). Nearly one-half of patients in the colonoscopy outreach group crossed over to complete FIT via usual care, whereas <5% of patients in the FIT outreach group underwent usual-care colonoscopy.Conclusions: Mailed outreach invitations appear to significantly increase CRC screening rates among underserved populations. In the current study, FIT-based outreach was found to be more effective than colonoscopy-based outreach to increase 1-time screening participation. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to compare the effectiveness of outreach strategies for promoting completion of the entire screening process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a widely accepted concept nationally and screening rates are increasing, there are differences in screening rates between states and within states.Methods: In an effort to increase screening rates and ensure equal access with respect to race/ethnicity, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene formed a coalition of stakeholders in 2003, with its primary focus on colonoscopy, to develop and implement strategies across the city to achieve this goal.Results: From a screening colonoscopy rate of only 42% in 2003, these concerted efforts contributed to achieving a screening rate of 62% by 2007 and a screening rate of almost 70% in 2014 with the elimination of racial and ethnic disparities.Conclusions: This article provides details of how this program was successfully conceived, implemented, and sustained in the large urban population of New York City. The authors hope that by sharing the many elements involved and the lessons learned, they may help other communities to adapt these experiences to their own environments so that CRC screening rates can be maximized. Cancer 2016;122:269-277. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study was conducted to determine the effect of continuing a centralized fecal occult blood test (FOBT) mailed program on screening adherence.Methods: A patient-level randomized controlled trial was conducted in 21 patient-centered medical home primary care clinics between January 2010 and November 2012. A total of 2208 patients ranging in age from 52 to 75 years in a substudy of the Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-Up (SOS) trial were randomized at year 3 to continued automated interventions (Continued group), which included mailed information regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening choices, and were mailed stool kit tests or to a group in which interventions were stopped (Stopped group). The main outcomes and measures were the completion of CRC screening in year 3 and by subgroup characteristics, respectively.Results: Adherence to CRC screening in year 3 was found to be significantly higher in patients in the Continued group compared with those in the Stopped group (53.3% vs 37.3%; adjusted net difference, 15.6% [P<.001]). This difference was entirely due to greater completion of FOBT (adjusted net difference, 18.0% [P<.001]). Year 3 CRC screening rates were highest in patients in the Continued group completing FOBT in both years 1 and 2 (77.2%), followed by patients completing only 1 FOBT in 1 of the 2 years (44.6%), with low rates of CRC testing reported among patients not completing any FOBT within the first 2 years (18.1%).Conclusions: A centralized mailed FOBT CRC screening program continued to be more effective than patient-centered medical home usual-care interventions, but only for those patients who had previously completed FOBT testing. Research is needed regarding how to engage patients not completing CRC testing after being mailed at least 2 rounds of FOBT tests. Cancer 2016;122:312-321. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND There is limited information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening trends in high-risk groups, including the black, obese, diabetic, and smoking populations. For this study, the authors evaluated national CRC screening trends in these high-risk groups to provide insights into whether screening resources are being appropriately used. METHODS This was a nationally representative, population-based study using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from the Centers for Disease Control. Data analysis was performed using bivariate analyses with weighted logistic regression. RESULTS In the general population, CRC screening increased significantly from 59% to 65% during the years 2006 to 2010. The screening prevalence in non-Hispanic blacks was 58% in 2006 and 65% in 2010. Among obese individuals, the prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening increased significantly from 59% in 2006 to 66% in 2010. Screening prevalence in individuals with diabetes was 63% in 2006 and 69% in 2010. The CRC screening prevalence in current smokers was 45% in 2006 and 50% in 2010. The odds of CRC screening in the non-Hispanic black population, the obese population, and the diabetic population were higher than in non-Hispanic whites, normal weight individuals, and the population without diabetes, respectively. Current smokers had significantly lower odds of CRC screening than never-smokers in the years studied (2006: odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.76; 2008: OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.63-0.71; 2010: OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.73). CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of CRC screening in high-risk groups is trending upward. Despite this, current smokers have significantly lower odds of CRC screening compared with the general population. Cancer 2014;120:2106-2113. © 2014 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The long-term effects of interventions to improve colorectal (CRC) screening in vulnerable populations are uncertain. The authors evaluated the impact of patient navigation (PN) on the equity of CRC prevention over a 5-year period. METHODS A culturally tailored CRC screening PN program was implemented in 1 community health center (CHC) in 2007. In a primary care network, CRC screening rates from 2006 to 2010 among eligible patients from the CHC with PN were compared with the rates from other practices without PN. Multivariable logistic regression models for repeated measures were used to assess differences over time. RESULTS Differences in CRC screening rates diminished among patients at the CHC with PN and at other practices between 2006 (49.2% vs 62.5%, respectively; P < .001) and 2010 (69.2% vs 73.6%, respectively; P < .001). The adjusted rate of increase over time was higher at the CHC versus other practices (5% vs 3.4% per year; P < .001). Among Latino patients at the CHC compared with other practices, lower CRC screening rates in 2006 (47.5% vs 52.1%, respectively; P = .02) were higher by 2010 (73.5% vs 67.3%, respectively; P < .001). Similar CRC screening rates among non-English speakers at the CHC and at other practices in 2006 (44.3% vs 44.7%, respectively; P = .79) were higher at the CHC by 2010 (70.6% vs 58.6%, respectively; P < .001). Adjusted screening rates increased more over time for Latino and non-English speakers at the CHC compared with other practices (both P < .001). CONCLUSIONS A PN program increased CRC screening rates in a CHC and improved equity in vulnerable patients. Long-term funding of PN programs has the potential to reduce cancer screening disparities. Cancer 2014;120:2025-2031. © 2014 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The authors evaluated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 2 interventions designed to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in safety-net settings. METHODS A 3-arm, quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted among 8 clinics in Louisiana. Screening efforts included: 1) enhanced usual care, 2) literacy-informed education of patients, and 3) education plus nurse support. Overall, 961 average-risk patients ages 50 to 85 years were eligible for routine CRC screening and were recruited. Outcomes included CRC screening completion and incremental cost effectiveness using literacy-informed education of patients and education plus nurse support versus enhanced usual care. RESULTS The baseline screening rate was <3%. After the interventions, the screening rate was 38.6% with enhanced usual care, 57.1% with education, and 60.6% with education that included additional nurse support. After adjusting for age, race, sex, and literacy, patients who received education alone were not more likely to complete screening than those who received enhanced usual care; and those who received additional nurse support were 1.60-fold more likely to complete screening than those who received enhanced usual care (95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.42; P = .024). The incremental cost per additional individual screened was $1337 for education plus nurse support over enhanced usual care. CONCLUSIONS Fecal occult blood test rates were increased beyond enhanced usual care by providing brief education and nurse support but not by providing education alone. More cost-effective alternatives to nurse support need to be investigated. Cancer 2013;119:3879-3886. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites as part of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to provide colorectal cancer screening to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals. Funded sites experienced unexpected challenges in recruiting patients for services.Methods: The authors conducted a longitudinal, qualitative case study of all 5 sites to document program implementation, including recruitment. Data were collected during 3 periods over the 4-year program and included interviews, document review, and observations. After coding and analyzing the data, themes were identified and triangulated across the research team. Patterns were confirmed through member checking, further validating the analytic interpretation.Results: During early implementation, patient enrollment was low at 4 of the 5 CRCSDP sites. Evaluators found 3 primary challenges to patient recruitment: overreliance on in-reach to National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program patients, difficulty keeping colorectal cancer screening and the program a priority among staff at partnering primary care clinics responsible for patient recruitment, and a lack of public knowledge about the need for colorectal cancer screening among patients. To address these challenges, site staff expanded partnerships with additional primary care networks for greater reach, enhanced technical support to primary care providers to ensure more consistent patient enrollment, and developed tailored outreach and education.Conclusions: Removing financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening was necessary but not sufficient to reach the priority population. To optimize colorectal cancer screening, public health practitioners must work closely with the health care sector to implement evidence-based, comprehensive strategies across individual, environmental, and systems levels of society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established and supported a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) from 2005 to 2009 for low-income, under- or uninsured men and women aged 50-64 at 5 sites in the United States. METHODS A multiple methods evaluation was conducted including 1) a longitudinal, comparative case study of program implementation, 2) the collection and analysis of client-level screening and diagnostic services outcome data, and 3) the collection and analysis of program- and patient-level cost data. RESULTS Several themes emerged from the results reported in the series of articles in this Supplement. These included the benefit of building on an existing infrastructure, strengths and weakness of both the 2 most frequently used screening tests (colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests), variability in costs of maintaining this screening program, and the importance of measuring the quality of screening tests. Population-level evaluation questions could not be answered because of the small size of the participating population and the limited time frame of the evaluation. The comprehensive evaluation of the program determined overall feasibility of this effort. CONCLUSIONS Critical lessons learned through the implementation and evaluation of the CDC's CRCSDP led to the development of a larger population-based program, the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2940-6. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND In 2005 through 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites to implement a colorectal cancer screening program for uninsured, low-income populations. These 5 sites composed a demonstration project intended to explore the feasibility of establishing a national colorectal cancer screening program through various service delivery models. METHODS A longitudinal, multiple case study was conducted to understand and document program implementation processes. Using metaphor as a qualitative analytic technique, evaluators identified stages of maturation across the programmatic life cycle. RESULTS Analysis rendered a working theory of program development during screening implementation. In early stages, program staff built relationships with CDC and local partners around screening readiness, faced real-world challenges putting program policies into practice, revised initial program designs, and developed new professional skills. Midterm implementation was defined by establishing program cohesiveness and expanding programmatic reach. In later stages of implementation, staff focused on sustainability and formal program closeout, which prompted reflection about personal and programmatic accomplishments. CONCLUSIONS Demonstration sites evolved through common developmental stages during screening implementation. Findings elucidate ways to target technical assistance to more efficiently move programs along their maturation trajectory. In practical terms, the time and cost associated with guiding a program to maturity may be potentially shortened to maximize return on investment for both organizations and clients receiving service benefits. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2926-39. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report briefly summarizes 13 articles in this dedicated supplement to Cancer documenting the full implementation and evaluation of CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP). The supplement includes 3 articles that describe clinical and quality outcomes; 2 articles that describe programmatic and clinical costs; 3 that were based on a multiple case study, using qualitative methods to describe the overall implementation experience of this initiative; and 4 articles written by and about individual program sites. The comprehensive, multi-methods evaluation conducted alongside the program produced many important lessons regarding the design, start-up, and implementation of colorectal cancer screening in this high-need population, and paved the way for the CDC to establish a larger, population-based colorectal cancer control initiative, broadly aligned with expectations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through its population-based emphasis on using a health systems approach to increase colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2817-9. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among US men and women. Screening rates have been slow to increase, and disparities in screening remain. METHODS To address the disparity in screening for this high burden but largely preventable disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed and established a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) in 2005 for low-income, under-insured or uninsured men and women aged 50 to 64 years in 5 participating US program sites. In this report, the authors describe the design of the CRCSDP and the overall clinical findings and screening test performance characteristics, including the positive fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rate; the rates of polyp, adenoma, and cancer detection with FOBTs and colonoscopies; and the positive predicative value for polyps, adenomas, and cancers. RESULTS In total, 5233 individuals at average risk and increased risk were screened for colorectal cancer across all 5 sites, including 44% who underwent screening FOBT and 56% who underwent screening colonoscopy. Overall, 77% of all individuals screened were women. The FOBT positivity rate was 10%. Results from all screening or diagnostic colonoscopies indicated that 75% had negative results and required a repeat screening colonoscopy in 10 years, 16% had low-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 5 to 10 years, 8% had high-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 3 years, and 0.6% had invasive cancers. CONCLUSIONS This report documents the successes and challenges in implementing the CDC's CRCSDP and describes the clinical outcomes of this 4-year initiative, the patterns in program uptake and test choice, and the comparative test performance characteristics of FOBT versus colonoscopy. Patterns in final outcomes from the follow-up of positive screening tests were consistent with national registry data. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2820-33. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND One of 5 nationally funded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Demonstration Programs, Project SCOPE, was conducted at an academic medical center and provided colonoscopy screening at no cost to underserved minority patients from local community health centers. METHODS Established barriers to CRC screening (eg, financial, language, transportation) among the target population were addressed through clinical coordination of care by key project staff. The use of a clinician with a patient navigator allowed for the performance of precolonoscopy 'telephone visits' instead of office visits to the gastroenterologist in virtually all patients. The clinician elicited information relevant to making screening decisions (eg, past medical and surgical history, focused review of systems, medication/supplement use, CRC screening history). The patient navigator reduced barriers, including, but not limited to, scheduling, transportation, and physical navigation of the medical center on the day of colonoscopy. RESULTS Preprogram preparation was vital in laying groundwork for the project, yet enhancements to the program were ongoing throughout the screening period. Detailed referral forms from primary care physicians, coupled with information obtained during telephone interviews, facilitated high colonoscopy completion rates and excellent patient satisfaction. Similarly valuable was the employment of a bilingual patient navigator, who provided practical and emotional patient support. CONCLUSIONS Academic medical centers can be efficient models for providing CRC screening to disadvantaged populations. Coordination of care by a preventive medicine department, directing the recruitment, scheduling, prescreening education, and the evaluation and preparation of target populations had an overall positive effect on CRC screening with colonoscopy among patients from a community health center. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2894-904. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer, as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women in the United States, represents an important area for public health intervention. Although colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer and detect disease early when treatment is most effective, few organized public health screening programs have been implemented and evaluated. From 2005 to 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 5 sites to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which was designed to reach medically underserved populations. METHODS The authors conducted a longitudinal, multiple case study to analyze program implementation processes. Qualitative methods included interviews with 100 stakeholders, 125 observations, and review of 19 documents. Data were analyzed within and across cases. RESULTS Several themes related to CRCSDP implementation emerged from the cross-case analysis: the complexity of colorectal cancer screening, the need for teamwork and collaboration, integration of the program into existing systems, the ability of programs to use wisdom at the local level, and the influence of social norms. Although these themes were explored independently from 1 another, interaction across themes was evident. CONCLUSIONS Colorectal cancer screening is clinically complex, and its screening methods are not well accepted by the general public; both of these circumstances have implications for program implementation. Using patient navigation, engaging in transdisciplinary teamwork, assimilating new programs into existing clinical settings, and deferring to local-level wisdom together helped to address complexity and enhance program implementation. In addition, public health efforts must confront negative social norms around colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2870-83. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2005 through 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites to implement a colorectal cancer screening program for uninsured, low-income populations. These 5 sites composed a demonstration project intended to explore the feasibility of establishing a national colorectal cancer screening program through various service delivery models.Methods: A longitudinal, multiple case study was conducted to understand and document program implementation processes. Using metaphor as a qualitative analytic technique, evaluators identified stages of maturation across the programmatic life cycle.Results: Analysis rendered a working theory of program development during screening implementation. In early stages, program staff built relationships with CDC and local partners around screening readiness, faced real-world challenges putting program policies into practice, revised initial program designs, and developed new professional skills. Midterm implementation was defined by establishing program cohesiveness and expanding programmatic reach. In later stages of implementation, staff focused on sustainability and formal program closeout, which prompted reflection about personal and programmatic accomplishments.Conclusions: Demonstration sites evolved through common developmental stages during screening implementation. Findings elucidate ways to target technical assistance to more efficiently move programs along their maturation trajectory. In practical terms, the time and cost associated with guiding a program to maturity may be potentially shortened to maximize return on investment for both organizations and clients receiving service benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites as part of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to provide colorectal cancer screening to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals. Funded sites experienced unexpected challenges in recruiting patients for services. METHODS The authors conducted a longitudinal, qualitative case study of all 5 sites to document program implementation, including recruitment. Data were collected during 3 periods over the 4-year program and included interviews, document review, and observations. After coding and analyzing the data, themes were identified and triangulated across the research team. Patterns were confirmed through member checking, further validating the analytic interpretation. RESULTS During early implementation, patient enrollment was low at 4 of the 5 CRCSDP sites. Evaluators found 3 primary challenges to patient recruitment: overreliance on in-reach to National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program patients, difficulty keeping colorectal cancer screening and the program a priority among staff at partnering primary care clinics responsible for patient recruitment, and a lack of public knowledge about the need for colorectal cancer screening among patients. To address these challenges, site staff expanded partnerships with additional primary care networks for greater reach, enhanced technical support to primary care providers to ensure more consistent patient enrollment, and developed tailored outreach and education. CONCLUSIONS Removing financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening was necessary but not sufficient to reach the priority population. To optimize colorectal cancer screening, public health practitioners must work closely with the health care sector to implement evidence-based, comprehensive strategies across individual, environmental, and systems levels of society. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2914-25. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to determine whether age, sex, a positive family history of colorectal cancer, and body mass index (BMI) are important predictors of advanced neoplasia in the setting of screening computed tomographic colonography (CTC). METHODS Consecutive patients who were referred for first-time screening CTC from 2004 to 2011 at a single medical center were enrolled. Results at pathology were recorded for all patients who underwent polypectomy. Logistic regression was used to identify significant predictor variables for advanced neoplasia (any adenoma ≥10 mm or with villous component, high-grade dysplasia, or adenocarcinoma). Odds ratios (ORs) were used to express associations between the study variables (age, sex, BMI, and a positive family history of colorectal cancer) and advanced neoplasia. RESULTS In total, 7620 patients underwent CTC screening. Of these, 276 patients (3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2%-4.1%) ultimately were diagnosed with advanced neoplasia. At multivariate analysis, age (mean OR per 10-year increase, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.0) and being a man (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2) were independent predictors of advanced neoplasia, whereas BMI and a positive family history of colorectal cancer were not. The number needed to screen to detect 1 case of advanced neoplasia varied from 51 among women aged ≤55 years to 10 among men aged >65 years. The number of post-CTC colonoscopies needed to detect 1 case of advanced neoplasia varied from 2 to 4. CONCLUSIONS Age and sex were identified as important independent predictors of advanced neoplasia risk in individuals undergoing screening CTC, whereas BMI and a positive family history of colorectal cancer were not. These results have implications for appropriate patient selection. Cancer 2013;119:2549-2554. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation (PN) is being used increasingly to help patients complete screening colonoscopy (SC) to prevent colorectal cancer. At their large, urban academic medical center with an open-access endoscopy system, the authors previously demonstrated that PN programs produced a colonoscopy completion rate of 78.5% in a cohort of 503 patients (predominantly African Americans and Latinos with public health insurance). Very little is known about the direct costs of implementing PN programs. The objective of the current study was to perform a detailed cost analysis of PN programs at the authors' institution from an institutional perspective. METHODS: In 2 randomized controlled trials, average-risk patients who were referred for SC by primary care providers were recruited for PN between May 2008 and May 2010. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 PN groups. The cost of PN and net income to the institution were determined in a cost analysis. RESULTS: Among 395 patients who completed colonoscopy, 53.4% underwent SC alone, 30.1% underwent colonoscopy with biopsy, and 16.5% underwent snare polypectomy. Accounting for the average contribution margins of each procedure type, the total revenue was $95,266.00. The total cost of PN was $14,027.30. Net income was $81,238.70. In a model sample of 1000 patients, net incomes for the institutional completion rate (approximately 80%), the historic PN program (approximately 65%), and the national average (approximately 50%) were compared. The current PN program generated additional net incomes of $35,035.50 and $44,956.00, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PN among minority patients with mostly public health insurance generated additional income to the institution, mainly because of increased colonoscopy completion rates. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Specialty of the endoscopist has been related to the postcolonoscopy interval risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the impact of such a difference on the long-term CRC prevention rate by screening colonoscopy is largely unknown. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the efficacy and cost of colonoscopy screening according to the specialty of the endoscopist in 100,000 individuals aged 50 years until death. The postcolonoscopy interval CRC risk (0.02%) and the relative risk (1.4) of interval CRC between gastroenterologist (GI) endoscopists and non-GI endoscopists were extracted from the literature. Both efficacy and costs were projected over a steady-state US population. Eventual increase in endoscopic capacity when assuming all procedures to be performed by GI endoscopists was simulated. RESULTS: According to the simulation model, screening colonoscopy performed by non-GI endoscopists resulted in a 11% relative reduction in the long-term CRC incidence prevention rate compared with the same procedure performed by GI endoscopists. When projected on the US population, the reduced non-GI efficacy resulted in an additional 3043 CRC cases and the loss of $200 million per year. When increasing the relative risk from 1.4 to 2.0, the difference in the prevention rate between GI endoscopists and non-GI endoscopists increased to 19%. It increased further to 38% when also assuming a 3-fold increase in the risk of interval CRC. An additional 165 screening colonoscopies per endoscopist per year would be required to shift all non-GI procedures to GI endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: When screening colonoscopy is performed by non-GI endoscopists, a substantial reduction in the long-term CRC prevention rate may be expected. Such difference appeared to be greater when a suboptimal efficacy of colonoscopy in preventing CRC was assumed. A 10-year saving of $2 billion may be expected when shifting all screening colonoscopies from non-GI endoscopists to GI endoscopists. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on a study which investigated the feasibility of offering colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) to minority women at the time of mammography in the U.S. A background on the state of CRCS in the U.S. is offered. Study subjects were women attending the Breast Examination Center of Harlem (BECH), the community outreach program of Memorial Sloan-Kettering catering primarily black and Hispanic Harlem Community. A discussion on findings from precolonoscopy medical evaluation and colonoscopy examination is detailed.

The article offers insights on a study on predictors of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within a managed care health plan setting in the U.S. It says screening rates nationwide remain low, despite the growing recognition of the significance of such tests in reducing cancer mortality. Thirty-six provider organizations participated in the randomized controlled effectiveness trial which was aim to increase CRC screening rates. The patient samples and screening rates were described using Chi-square and Student t test analyses.