Search

BackgroundLiterature on colorectal cancer outcomes in individuals of Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) descent is limited. To address this gap, we estimated five-year colorectal cancer-specific survival by race and ethnicity, including MENA individuals, in a diverse, population-based sample in California.MethodsWe identified adults (ages 18-79 years) diagnosed with a first or only colorectal cancer in 2004 to 2017 using the California Cancer Registry (CCR), including non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, and MENA individuals. For each racial/ethnic group, we calculated five-year colorectal cancer-specific survival and used Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine the association of race/ethnicity and survival, adjusting for clinical and socio demographic factors.ResultsOf 110,192 persons diagnosed with colorectal cancer, five-year colorectal cancer-specific survival was lowest in Black (61.0%) and highest in MENA (73.2%) individuals. Asian (72.2%) individuals had higher survival than White (70.0%) and Hispanic (68.2%) individuals. In adjusted analysis, MENA [adjusted HR (aHR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76-0.89], Asian (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90), and Hispanic (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97) race/ethnicity were associated with higher, and Black (aHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.18) race/ethnicity was associated with lower survival compared with non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to report colorectal cancer survival in MENA individuals in the United States. We observed higher survival of MENA individuals compared with other racial/ethnic groups, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors.ImpactFuture studies are needed to identify factors contributing to cancer outcomes in this unique population.

BackgroundYoung adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) comprise a growing, yet understudied, patient population. We estimated 5-year relative survival of early-onset CRC and examined disparities in survival by race-ethnicity in a population-based sample.MethodsWe used the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of cancer registries to identify patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC (20-49 years of age) between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2013. For each racial-ethnic group, we estimated 5-year relative survival, overall and by sex, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis. To illustrate temporal trends, we compared 5-year relative survival in 1992-2002 vs 2003-2013. We also used Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine the association of race-ethnicity and all-cause mortality, adjusting for age at diagnosis, sex, county type (urban vs rural), county-level median household income, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis.ResultsWe identified 33,777 patients diagnosed with early-onset CRC (58.5% White, 14.0% Black, 13.0% Asian, 14.5% Hispanic). Five-year relative survival ranged from 57.6% (Black patients) to 69.1% (White patients). Relative survival improved from 1992-2002 to 2003-2013 for White patients only; there was no improvement for Black, Asian, or Hispanic patients. This pattern was similar by sex, tumor site, and stage at diagnosis. In adjusted analysis, Black (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.49), Asian (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12), and Hispanic (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.21) race-ethnicity were associated with all-cause mortality.ConclusionOur study adds to the well-documented disparities in CRC in older adults by demonstrating persistent racial-ethnic disparities in relative survival and all-cause mortality in patients with early-onset CRC.

Contrary to decreasing incidence rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) in older adults, incidence rates have nearly doubled in younger adults (age

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.

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

Abstract Screening with FIT or colonoscopy can reduce CRC mortality. In our pragmatic, randomized trial of screening outreach over three years, patients annually received mailed FITs or colonoscopy invitations. We examined screening initiation after each mailing and crossover from the invited to other modality. Eligible patients (50–64 years, ≥1 primary-care visit before randomization, and no history of CRC) received mailed FIT kits (n = 2400) or colonoscopy invitations (n = 2400) from March 2013 through July 2016. Among those invited for colonoscopy, we used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening initiation with colonoscopy vs. FIT vs. no screening after the first mailing. Most patients were female (61.8%) and Hispanic (48.9%) or non-Hispanic black (24.0%). Among those invited for FIT , 56.6% (n = 1359) initiated with FIT, whereas 3.3% (n = 78) crossed over to colonoscopy; 151 (15.7%) and 61 (7.7%) initiated with FIT after second and third mailings. Among those invited for colonoscopy , 25.5% (n = 613) initiated with colonoscopy whereas 18.8% (n = 452) crossed over to FIT; 112 (8.4%) and 48 (4.2%) initiated with colonoscopy after second and third mailings. Three or more primary-care visits prior to randomization were associated with initiating with colonoscopy (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17–1.91) and crossing over to FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19–2.23). Although nearly half of patients initiated screening after the first mailing, few non-responders in either outreach group initiated after a second or third mailing. More patients invited to colonoscopy crossed over to FIT than those assigned to FIT crossed over to colonoscopy. Highlights • About 50% initiated FIT and 25% initiated colonoscopy after the first mailing. • Very few non-responders initiated screening after a second or third mailing. • About 20% of patients invited for colonoscopy crossed over to FIT. • Screening initiation was associated with race/ethnicity and primary care visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening with FIT or colonoscopy can reduce CRC mortality. In our pragmatic, randomized trial of screening outreach over three years, patients annually received mailed FITs or colonoscopy invitations. We examined screening initiation after each mailing and crossover from the invited to other modality. Eligible patients (50-64 years, ≥1 primary-care visit before randomization, and no history of CRC) received mailed FIT kits (n = 2400) or colonoscopy invitations (n = 2400) from March 2013 through July 2016. Among those invited for colonoscopy, we used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening initiation with colonoscopy vs. FIT vs. no screening after the first mailing. Most patients were female (61.8%) and Hispanic (48.9%) or non-Hispanic black (24.0%). Among those invited for FIT, 56.6% (n = 1359) initiated with FIT, whereas 3.3% (n = 78) crossed over to colonoscopy; 151 (15.7%) and 61 (7.7%) initiated with FIT after second and third mailings. Among those invited for colonoscopy, 25.5% (n = 613) initiated with colonoscopy whereas 18.8% (n = 452) crossed over to FIT; 112 (8.4%) and 48 (4.2%) initiated with colonoscopy after second and third mailings. Three or more primary-care visits prior to randomization were associated with initiating with colonoscopy (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17-1.91) and crossing over to FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19-2.23). Although nearly half of patients initiated screening after the first mailing, few non-responders in either outreach group initiated after a second or third mailing. More patients invited to colonoscopy crossed over to FIT than those assigned to FIT crossed over to colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]