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

Background: The purpose of the Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) Program, a Cancer Moonshot℠ Initiative, is to support research to build the evidence base on multilevel interventions that increase rates of colorectal cancer screening, follow-up, and referral to care to address disparities in colorectal cancer screening. The National Cancer Institute funded eight Research Projects to implement multilevel interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening among communities who traditionally have been medically underserved. To analyze the impact of ACCSIS across Research Projects, the consortium developed a set of common data elements. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of developing the common data elements to facilitate analysis of ACCSIS data as well as support and inform implementation science research studies. Methods: The ACCSIS Data, Design, and Analysis Work Group was tasked with designing common data elements through a review of existing data collection instruments, examination of data elements proposed by the ACCSIS Research Projects, and deliberations on the data required to compare across the Research Projects. ACCSIS Consortium members drafted, revised, and finalized a common data elements document consisting of variables to collect and surveys to administer to evaluate ACCSIS implementation activities and outcomes in a standardized manner across the Research Projects. Results: The ACCSIS Consortium decided to collect the following categories of common data elements: characteristics across multiple levels of the multicomponent interventions, implementation climate, and determinants; interventions and strategies; implementation outcome constructs and definitions; colorectal cancer screening episodes (screening, diagnostic testing follow-up, cancer detection, and cancer treatment); and cost measures. To assess implementation climate, the consortium prioritized constructs from five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Conclusions: The ACCSIS common data elements offer a set of harmonization data for future implementation efforts. The consortium is conducting a systematic assessment using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess data quality and approaches to improve and sustain data collection. Lessons learned from these ongoing activities will offer additional insights to tailor the ACCSIS common data elements and support efforts to increase colorectal cancer screening for populations experiencing disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Independent use of artificial intelligence with computer-aided detection (CADe) and Endocuff Vision (ECV) has demonstrated enhanced adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Objective: Our pilot study aimed to define the necessary participant number for future randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by comparing the ADR of combined CADe + ECV against CADe alone and standard colonoscopy. Design: This single-center pilot study retrospectively analyzed a prospectively maintained database, where patients underwent screening colonoscopies sequentially by standard method, CADe alone, and then CADe + ECV. Method: The allocation of the technique depended on the study period. Patients were randomly selected from the cohort to form three groups of 30 patients, with stratification based on factors influencing the ADR. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Results: From April to June 2021, 244 patients underwent screening colonoscopy. 198 were eligible, and after randomization, 90 patients were included across three groups (colonoscopy n = 30, CADe n = 30, CADe + ECV = 30). The ADR was higher in the CADe + ECV group compared to the CADe and colonoscopy groups: 60% versus 40%, and 30%, respectively (p = 0.03). The number of polyps ⩽3 mm detected was greater in the CADe + ECV group (n = 23) versus CADe (n = 7) and colonoscopy (n = 12) groups, respectively (p = 0.03). CADe + ECV identified more polyps in the cecum/right colon (n = 26) compared to CADe (n = 18) and colonoscopy (n = 12) groups (p = 0.04), and in the left colon/sigmoid (n = 14) compared to CADe (n = 5) and colonoscopy (n = 2) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: These findings underscore the synergic potential of combining CADe with ECV to enhance ADR and enable us to perform sample size calculations for future RCTs. Registration: Clinical Trials number: NCT05080088. Registration 06/06/2021. Plain language summary: Improving polyp detection during colonoscopy: comparing three techniques Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and early detection of adenomas (precancerous polyps) during colonoscopy is crucial in preventing this disease. Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of three different colonoscopy techniques in detecting adenomas: standard colonoscopy, colonoscopy with computer-aided detection (CADe), and colonoscopy combining CADe with Endocuff Vision (ECV). We conducted a pilot study with 90 patients, divided into three groups of 30 each. One group underwent standard colonoscopy, another had colonoscopy with CADe, and the third group experienced colonoscopy with both CADe and ECV. Our results showed that the combined CADe + ECV technique detected the highest number of adenomas, significantly outperforming both standard colonoscopy and CADe alone. Specifically, 60% of patients in the CADe + ECV group had adenomas detected, compared to 40% in the CADe group and 30% in the standard colonoscopy group. This study highlights the potential benefits of using advanced technologies like CADe and ECV together to improve adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy, ultimately aiding in better prevention of colorectal cancer. Future larger-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine the use of these technologies in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background Aims Methods Results Conclusions Trial Registration The positivity thresholds of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening vary between countries.To explore the trade‐off between colonoscopies performed, adverse events and lesions detected at different FIT thresholds in a Norwegian CRC screening trial.We included first participation in biennial FIT screening for 47,265 individuals aged 50–74 years. Individuals with FIT > 15 μg Hb/g faeces were referred for colonoscopy. We estimated the number of colonoscopies, adverse events, screen‐detected CRCs, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions expected at FIT thresholds currently or recently used in other European countries ranging between 20 and 150 μg/g.At the 15 μg/g threshold (Norway), 3705 participants underwent colonoscopy, of whom 203 had CRC, 1119 advanced adenomas and 256 advanced serrated lesions. Using a 47 μg/g threshold, 1826 (49.3%) individuals would have undergone colonoscopy, and 154 (75.9%) would have been diagnosed with CRC, 702 (62.7%) with advanced adenoma and 128 (50.0%) with advanced serrated lesion compared to the 15 μg/g threshold. At 150 μg/g, the corresponding figures would have been 838 (22.6%) undergoing colonoscopy, 114 (56.2%) with CRC, 345 (30.8%) advanced adenoma and 54 (21.1%) advanced serrated lesions. The detection rate of stage I CRC was 0.22% at 15 μg/g and 0.11% at 150 μg/g. Post‐colonoscopy bleeding rates were 0.8% and 1.7%, respectively.Increasing the FIT threshold reduces colonoscopy demand, but substantially decreases lesion detection and unfavourably changes CRC stage distribution. The risk of adverse events at colonoscopy increased with FIT threshold, requiring country‐specific information on adverse events.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01538550 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Adequate bowel preparation is paramount for a high-quality screening colonoscopy. Despite the importance of adequate bowel preparation, there is a lack of large studies that associated the degree of bowel preparation with long-term colorectal cancer outcomes in screening patients. METHODS: In a large population-based screening program database in Austria, quality of bowel preparation was estimated according to the Aronchick Scale by the endoscopist (excellent, good, fair, poor, and inadequate bowel preparation). We used logistic regression to assess the influence of bowel preparation on the detection of different polyp types and the interphysician variation in bowel preparation scoring. Time-to-event analyses were performed to investigate the association of bowel preparation with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) death. RESULTS: A total of 335,466 colonoscopies between January 2012 and follow-up until December 2022 were eligible for the analyses. As compared with excellent bowel preparation, adenoma detection was not significantly lower for good bowel preparation (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9971-1.0329, P 5 0.1023); however, adenoma detection was significantly lower in fair bowel preparation (odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.9408-0.9939, P 5 0.0166). Individuals who had fair or lower bowel preparation at screening colonoscopy had significantly higher hazards for PCCRC death (hazard ratio for fair bowel preparation 2.56, 95% CI 1.67-3.94, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Fair bowel preparation on the Aronchick Scale was not only associated with a lower adenoma detection probability but also with increased risk of PCCRC death. Efforts should be made to increase bowel cleansing above fair scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study aimed to compare colorectal cancer (CRC) awareness between screening-eligible and ineligible individuals in Palestine. Methods Convenience sampling was utilized to recruit Palestinian adults from diverse settings, including hospitals, primary healthcare centers and public spaces across 11 governorates. The evaluation of CRC awareness in terms of signs/symptoms, risk factors and causation myths was conducted using Arabic-translated, modified versions of the validated instruments, the Bowel Cancer Awareness Measure and the Cancer Awareness Measure-Mythical Causes Scale. Results The final analysis included 2698 participants, with 2158 (80.9%) eligible for CRC screening and 540 (19.1%) ineligible for it. The most recognized CRC sign/symptom was 'lump in the abdomen' in both screening-eligible (n = 386, 71.5%) and ineligible (n = 1582, 73.3%) groups. 'Lack of physical activity' was the most recognized risk factor in both groups (eligible: n = 451, 83.5%; ineligible: n = 1766, 81.8%). The most reported causation myth in both groups was 'having a physical trauma' (eligible: n = 340, 63.0%; ineligible: n = 1353, 62.7%). In the screening-eligible group, only 210 participants (38.9%) demonstrated high awareness of CRC signs/symptoms, 213 participants (39.4%) showed high awareness of CRC risk factors and only 46 participants (8.5%) displayed high awareness of CRC causation myths. There were no significant associations between being eligible for screening colonoscopy and the awareness levels of CRC signs/symptoms, risk factors and causation myths. Conclusion Overall, awareness levels of CRC signs/symptoms, risk factors and causation myths were notably low among screening-eligible participants. There were no differences in awareness levels between individuals eligible for colonoscopy and those who were not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patient navigation is a recommended practice to improve cancer screenings among underserved populations including those residing in rural areas with care access barriers. We report on patient navigation programme adaptations to increase follow‐up colonoscopy rates after abnormal fecal testing in rural primary care practices. Methods: Participating clinics delivered a patient navigation programme to eligible patients from 28 affiliated clinics serving rural communities in Oregon clustered within 3 Medicaid health plans. Patient navigation adaptations were tracked using data sources including patient navigation training programme reflections, qualitative interviews, clinic meetings, and periodic reflections with practice facilitators. Findings: Initial, planned (proactive) adaptations were made to address the rural context; later, unplanned (reactive) adaptations were implemented to address the impact of the COVID‐19 global pandemic. Initial planned adaptations to the patient navigation programme were made before the main trial to address the needs of the rural context, including provider shortages and geographic dispersion limiting both patient access to care and training opportunities for providers. Later unplanned adaptations were made primarily in response to COVID‐19 care suspension and staff redeployments and shortages that occurred during implementation. Conclusion: While unplanned adaptations were implemented to address the contextual impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on care access patterns and staffing, the changes to training content and context were beneficial to the rural setting overall and should be sustained. Our findings can guide future efforts to optimise the success of such programmes in other rural settings and highlight the important role of adaptations in implementation projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Colorectal cancers (CRCs) arise from adenomas, which can produce fecal occult blood and can be detected endoscopically, or sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), which rarely bleed and may be more challenging to detect. Models informing CRC screening policy should reflect both pathways, accounting for uncertainty. Methods Novel decision-analytic model of the adenoma and serrated pathways for CRC (ANSER) to compare current and emerging screening strategies, accounting for differential test sensitivities for adenomas and SSLs, and uncertainty. Strategies included colonoscopy every 10 years, stool-DNA/FIT (sDNA-FIT) every 1-3 years, or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) every year from age 45 to 75 years. Outcomes included CRC cases and deaths, cost-effectiveness (cost/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained), and burden–benefit (colonoscopies/life-year gained), with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Results ANSER predicted 62.5 (95% UI = 58.8-66.3) lifetime CRC cases and 24.1 (95% UI = 22.5-25.7) CRC deaths/1000 45-year-olds without screening, and 78%-87% CRC mortality reductions with screening. The tests' outcome distributions overlapped for QALYs gained but separated for required colonoscopies and costs. All strategies cost less than $100 000/QALY gained vs no screening. Colonoscopy was the most effective and cost-effective, costing $9300/life-year gained (95% UI = $500-$21 900) vs FIT. sDNA-FIT cost more than $500 000/QALY gained vs FIT. As more CRCs arose from SSLs, colonoscopy remained preferred based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness, but cost-effectiveness improved for a next-generation sDNA-FIT. Conclusion When the serrated pathway is considered, modeling suggests that colonoscopy is cost-effective vs FIT. In contrast, modeling suggests that sDNA-FIT is not cost-effective vs FIT despite its greater sensitivity for SSLs, even if a substantial minority of CRCs arise from SSLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer is a common condition with an uncommon burden of disease, heterogeneity in manifestation, and no definitive treatment in the advanced stages. Renewed efforts to unravel the genetic drivers of colorectal cancer progression are paramount. Early-stage detection contributes to the success of cancer therapy and increases the likelihood of a favorable prognosis. Here, we have executed a comprehensive computational workflow aimed at uncovering the discrete stagewise genomic drivers of colorectal cancer progression. Methods: Using the TCGA COADREAD expression data and clinical metadata, we constructed stage-specific linear models as well as contrast models to identify stage-salient differentially expressed genes. Stage-salient differentially expressed genes with a significant monotone trend of expression across the stages were identified as progression-significant biomarkers. The stage-salient genes were benchmarked using normals-augmented dataset, and cross-referenced with existing knowledge. The candidate biomarkers were used to construct the feature space for learning an optimal model for the digital screening of early-stage colorectal cancers. The candidate biomarkers were also examined for constructing a prognostic model based on survival analysis. Results: Among the biomarkers identified are: CRLF1, CALB2, STAC2, UCHL1, KCNG1 (stage-I salient), KLHL34, LPHN3, GREM2, ADCY5, PLAC2, DMRT3 (stage-II salient), PIGR, HABP2, SLC26A9 (stage-III salient), GABRD, DKK1, DLX3, CST6, HOTAIR (stage-IV salient), and CDH3, KRT80, AADACL2, OTOP2, FAM135B, HSP90AB1 (top linear model genes). In particular the study yielded 31 genes that are progression-significant such as ESM1, DKK1, SPDYC, IGFBP1, BIRC7, NKD1, CXCL13, VGLL1, PLAC1, SPERT, UPK2, and interestingly three members of the LY6G6 family. Significant monotonic linear model genes included HIGD1A, ACADS, PEX26, and SPIB. A feature space of just seven biomarkers, namely ESM1, DHRS7C, OTOP3, AADACL2, LPHN3, GABRD, and LPAR1, was sufficient to optimize a RandomForest model that achieved > 98% balanced accuracy (and performant recall) of cancer vs. normal on external validation. Design of an optimal multivariate model based on survival analysis yielded a prognostic panel of three stage-IV salient genes, namely HOTAIR, GABRD, and DKK1. Based on the above sparse signatures, we have developed COADREADx, a web-server for potentially assisting colorectal cancer screening and patient risk stratification. COADREADx provides uncertainty measures for its predictions and needs clinical validation. It has been deployed for experimental non-commercial use at: . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the third leading cause of cancer death in the USA. Latinx adults are overrepresented in late-stage CRC diagnosis as CRC screening utilization remains low among Latinx-identifying individuals. This study aims to evaluate the effect of a theory-based narrative video following a culturally appropriate storyline on CRC screening intention, knowledge, and psychosocial variables along the U.S.-Mexico border. We designed and analyzed a non-randomized pre-posttest evaluation of a narrative, culturally tailored video embedded within a community program. The study is set in the U.S.-Mexico border community. Outreach provided a link or QR code to access the survey. In all, 458 participants started the survey, and 304 completed the survey. Participants were recruited through flyers distributed throughout various community events by the program's community health workers and via social media. The intervention evaluated changes in participant's knowledge, perceived barriers, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and perceived benefits and intention to screen. Participants were a mean age of 39 and identified mainly as female (72.7%) and Hispanic/Latinx (88.49%). After viewing the narrative video, participants had significantly improved perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and benefits, while perceived barriers and sense of fatalism significantly decreased. Paradoxically, this was associated with a significant decrease in knowledge scores. Results from this intervention suggest that a theory-based narrative video following a culturally appropriate storyline effectively improves psychosocial variables and intention to carry out CRC screening in a predominantly Hispanic border population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids can inform patients about CRC screening benefits, costs, and procedures. Patients who receive the decision aid report wanting to share the information with their families and friends. We evaluated a CRC screening decision aid on Hispanic patients' communication to their alters and whether patient-alter communication leads to alters' CRC screening intention. Methods: We conducted a one-arm pre/post study of Hispanic patients and their alters; patients (n = 42) and their alters (n = 19) were recruited from a clinic site in Yakima County, Washington State. Patients viewed a CRC screening decision aid at the clinic site. Survey data from patients and alters were collected via telephone including patients' communication with their alters about CRC screening after viewing the decision aid and alters' intention to be screened for CRC after talking to the patient. Results: Most participants reported sharing CRC information with their alters after viewing the decision aid, and most alters confirmed they had received CRC information from participants (68%). The decision aid was associated with participants' own intention to undergo CRC screening and with alters' intention to be screened for CRC using a fecal occult blood test (p = 0.014) and sigmoidoscopy (p = 0.011). Conclusions: Patient decision aids have the potential to increase CRC screening behavior beyond the decision aid recipients to their social network. Trial registration: Trials Registration Number: NCT04444232 "Retrospectively registered." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) remains low, requiring alternative approaches for increasing participation. Opportunistic screening of hospitalized patients may aid in increasing uptake rates. Objective To assess whether inpatients can be recruited for opportunistic CRC screening using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Methods Inpatient charts were prospectively reviewed for study eligibility on admission of patients to the medical wards of 3 hospitals in Winnipeg, Canada. Eligible patients were approached for participation and consent. Inoculated FIT specimen collection tubes were sent to the hospital laboratory for testing. Patients with positive FIT results received a follow-up colonoscopy. Results In total, 1542 inpatient charts were screened for eligibility; 53 patients were identified for enrollment (51.9% were male; median age, 59 years), of whom 13 patients consented to participate but only 7 provided a stool specimen. One of those 7 patients had a positive FIT result. The overall screening rate was low, at 0.45%. The primary reason for exclusion of patients was age (outside of the range of 50-75 years), followed by patients having recent gastrointestinal bleeding and/or known intestinal diseases. Conclusions Our data suggest that it is infeasible to recruit inpatients for opportunistic CRC screening in routine clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The purpose of the Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) Program, a Cancer Moonshot℠ Initiative, is to support research to build the evidence base on multilevel interventions that increase rates of colorectal cancer screening, follow-up, and referral to care to address disparities in colorectal cancer screening. The National Cancer Institute funded eight Research Projects to implement multilevel interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening among communities who traditionally have been medically underserved. To analyze the impact of ACCSIS across Research Projects, the consortium developed a set of common data elements. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of developing the common data elements to facilitate analysis of ACCSIS data as well as support and inform implementation science research studies. Methods The ACCSIS Data, Design, and Analysis Work Group was tasked with designing common data elements through a review of existing data collection instruments, examination of data elements proposed by the ACCSIS Research Projects, and deliberations on the data required to compare across the Research Projects. ACCSIS Consortium members drafted, revised, and finalized a common data elements document consisting of variables to collect and surveys to administer to evaluate ACCSIS implementation activities and outcomes in a standardized manner across the Research Projects. Results The ACCSIS Consortium decided to collect the following categories of common data elements: characteristics across multiple levels of the multicomponent interventions, implementation climate, and determinants; interventions and strategies; implementation outcome constructs and definitions; colorectal cancer screening episodes (screening, diagnostic testing follow-up, cancer detection, and cancer treatment); and cost measures. To assess implementation climate, the consortium prioritized constructs from five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Conclusions The ACCSIS common data elements offer a set of harmonization data for future implementation efforts. The consortium is conducting a systematic assessment using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess data quality and approaches to improve and sustain data collection. Lessons learned from these ongoing activities will offer additional insights to tailor the ACCSIS common data elements and support efforts to increase colorectal cancer screening for populations experiencing disparities.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths for the overall US population, with over 153,000 new cases annually. It is one the most diagnosed cancers in veterans and accounts for approximately 9 ​% of all cancers in this population. Methods: This cross-sectional study used weighted data from the BRFSS 2021, a nationally representative US-telephone-based survey. We assessed the rate of endoscopic and stool-based colorectal cancer screening done in the VP compared to the NVP, stratified by age of screening, insurance, health status, primary care and marital status. We used backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analyses to then assess for potentially predictive factors. Results: A total of 117,227,096 adults were included in the study of which 11.64 ​% were veterans. We found that a higher proportion of veterans (78.44 ​%) had endoscopic CRC screening compared to non-veterans (68.62 ​%). VP were more likely to be screened compared to NVP (OR ​= ​1.32, (1.00–1.74). Only 26.45 ​% of VP in this study utilized military health coverage and are four-times likely to be screened (OR ​= ​3.64, (2.04–6.52). Lastly, both VP and NVP who were actively followed by their primary care provider (OR ​= ​2.80, (2.02–3.87) were more likely to be screened. Conclusion: A higher proportion of VP had endoscopic colorectal cancer screening, but a screening gap still exists. Active engagement with PCPs is associated with more frequent endoscopic CRC screening in veterans. We recommend more grassroots efforts to get veterans engaged with their PCPs to significantly improve screening coverage.

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids can inform patients about CRC screening benefits, costs, and procedures. Patients who receive the decision aid report wanting to share the information with their families and friends. We evaluated a CRC screening decision aid on Hispanic patients’ communication to their alters and whether patient-alter communication leads to alters’ CRC screening intention. Methods We conducted a one-arm pre/post study of Hispanic patients and their alters; patients (n = 42) and their alters (n = 19) were recruited from a clinic site in Yakima County, Washington State. Patients viewed a CRC screening decision aid at the clinic site. Survey data from patients and alters were collected via telephone including patients’ communication with their alters about CRC screening after viewing the decision aid and alters’ intention to be screened for CRC after talking to the patient. Results Most participants reported sharing CRC information with their alters after viewing the decision aid, and most alters confirmed they had received CRC information from participants (68%). The decision aid was associated with participants' own intention to undergo CRC screening and with alters' intention to be screened for CRC using a fecal occult blood test (p = 0.014) and sigmoidoscopy (p = 0.011). Conclusions Patient decision aids have the potential to increase CRC screening behavior beyond the decision aid recipients to their social network. Trial registration Trials Registration Number: NCT04444232 “Retrospectively registered.”

BackgroundGuidelines recommend screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), but participation and abnormal test follow up rates are suboptimal, with disparities by demography. Evidence-based interventions exist to promote screening, but community adoption and implementation are limited.MethodsThe San Diego Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) program is an academic-community partnership testing regional implementation of a Hub-and-Spoke model for increasing CRC screening and follow-up. The "hub" is a non-academic, non-profit organization that includes 17 community health center (CHC) systems, serving over 190 rural and urban clinic sites. The "spokes" are 3 CHC systems that oversee 11-28 clinics each, totaling over 60 clinics. Using a cluster-randomized trial design, 9 clinics were randomized to intervention and 16 to usual care. Within intervention clinics, approximately 5000 eligible patients not up-to-date with CRC screening per year were identified for intervention. Interventions include an invitation primer, a mailed fecal immunochemical test with completion instructions, and phone and text-based reminders (hub) and patient navigation protocol to promote colonoscopy completion after abnormal FIT (spoke). Outcomes include: 1) proportion of patients up-to-date with screening after three years in intervention versus non-intervention clinics; 2) proportion of patients with abnormal FIT completing colonoscopy within six months of the abnormal result. Implementation science measures are collected to assess acceptability, intervention and usual care adaptations, and sustainability of the intervention strategies.ConclusionThis large-scale, regional cluster randomized trial among CHCs serving diverse populations is anticipated to accelerate progress in CRC prevention in underserved populations.Trial registrationNCT04941300.

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death and the second most common cancer diagnosis among the Hispanic population in the United States. However, CRC screening prevalence remains lower among Hispanic adults than among non-Hispanic white adults. To reduce CRC screening disparities, efforts to implement CRC screening evidence-based interventions in primary care organizations (PCOs) must consider their potential effect on existing screening disparities. More research is needed to understand how to leverage existing implementation science methodologies to improve health disparities. The Coaching to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Equity (CoachIQ) pilot study explores whether integrating two implementation science tools, Causal Pathway Diagrams and practice facilitation, is a feasible and effective way to address CRC screening disparities among Hispanic patients. Methods We used a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design to evaluate feasibility and assess initial signals of effectiveness of the CoachIQ approach. Three PCOs received coaching from CoachIQ practice facilitators over a 12-month period. Three non-equivalent comparison group PCOs received coaching during the same period as participants in a state quality improvement program. We conducted descriptive analyses of screening rates and coaching activities. Results The CoachIQ practice facilitators discussed equity, facilitated prioritization of QI activities, and reviewed CRC screening disparities during a higher proportion of coaching encounters than the comparison group practice facilitator. While the mean overall CRC screening rate in the comparison PCOs increased from 34 to 41%, the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients did not increase from 30%. In contrast, the mean overall CRC screening rate at the CoachIQ PCOs increased from 41 to 44%, and the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients increased from 35 to 39%. Conclusions The CoachIQ program merges two implementation science methodologies, practice facilitation and causal pathway diagrams, to help PCOs focus quality improvement efforts on improving CRC screening while also reducing screening disparities. Results from this pilot study demonstrate key differences between CoachIQ facilitation and standard facilitation, and point to the potential of the CoachIQ approach to decrease disparities in CRC screening.

Resumen: Introducción y objetivo: La adherencia al tamizaje del cáncer colorrectal (CCR) es esencial para la efectividad de los programas de escrutinio. A pesar de que los programas de tamizaje organizado pueden mejorar la calidad del proceso y la adherencia, aún hay desafíos para lograrlo. En este estudio implementamos un programa bienal de tamizaje organizado para CCR con el objetivo de describir la adherencia y los patrones de participación. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio longitudinal y descriptivo en el que un equipo de navegadores de pacientes capacitados realizó intervenciones con recordatorios mediante llamadas telefónicas para dar seguimiento a una cohorte de 301 sujetos elegibles para el tamizaje de CCR mediante una prueba de inmunoquímica fecal (FIT). Todos los participantes que cumplieron con su seguimiento recibieron un kit FIT. Resultados: Se realizaron 747 llamadas telefónicas divididas en tres intervenciones. De la cohorte inicial, 126 sujetos completaron su proceso de tamizaje bienal mediante FIT, lo que indica una adherencia consistente del 41.8% a nuestro programa. Los patrones de participación fueron 126 participantes consistentes (41.8%), 160 inconsistentes (53.2%) y 15 nunca atendidos (5%). Conclusiones: Nuestro estudio resalta la importancia de los programas de tamizaje organizado en la detección temprana del cáncer colorrectal. La implementación de intervenciones de seguimiento mediante recordatorios y la capacitación de navegadores de pacientes, puede lograr mejoras en la adherencia; sin embargo, es necesario explorar nuevas estrategias para superar las barreras en la comunicación telefónica. Abstract: Introduction and aim: Adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is essential for the effectiveness of screening programs. Even though organized screening programs can improve the quality of the process and adherence, there are still challenges to overcome. The aim of the present study, in which we implemented a biennial organized screening program for CRC, was to describe adherence and participation patterns. Materials and methods: A longitudinal, descriptive study was conducted, in which a team of trained patient navigators carried out interventions, with reminders via cellphone communication, to follow a cohort of 301 subjects eligible for CRC screening, utilizing a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). All the follow-up subjects received a FIT kit. Results: A total of 747 cellphone calls were made and divided into three interventions. From the initial cohort, 126 subjects completed their biennial screening process through the FIT, indicating a consistent adherence rate of 41.8% to our program. The participation patterns were: 126 consistent participants (41.8%), 160 inconsistent participants (53.2%), and 15 participants that were never contacted (5%). Conclusions: In conclusion, our study underlines the importance of organized screening programs in the early detection of CRC. The implementation of follow-up interventions, through reminders and the training of patient navigators, can improve adherence, but there is a need for examining new strategies, to overcome barriers to communication via cellphone.

Abstract Background There is an urgent need to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake in Texas federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which serve a predominantly vulnerable population with high demands. Empirical support exists for evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that are proven to increase CRCS; however, as with screening, their use remains low in FQHCs. This study aimed to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods We recruited employees involved in implementing CRCS EBIs (e.g., physicians) using data from a CDC-funded program to increase the CRCS in Texas FQHCs. Through 23 group interviews, we explored experiences with practice change, CRCS promotion and quality improvement initiatives, organizational readiness, the impact of COVID-19, and the use of CRCS EBIs (e.g., provider reminders). We used directed content analysis with CFIR constructs to identify the critical facilitators and barriers. Results The analysis revealed six primary CFIR constructs that influence implementation: information technology infrastructure, innovation design, work infrastructure, performance measurement pressure, assessing needs, and available resources. Based on experiences with four recommended EBIs, participants described barriers, including data limitations of electronic health records and the design of reminder alerts targeted at deliverers and recipients of patient or provider reminders. Implementation facilitators include incentivized processes to increase provider assessment and feedback, existing clinic processes (e.g., screening referrals), and available resources to address patient needs (e.g., transportation). Staff buy-in emerged as an implementation facilitator, fostering a conducive environment for change within clinics. Conclusions Using CFIR, we identified barriers, such as the burden of technology infrastructure, and facilitators, such as staff buy-in. The results, which enhance our understanding of CRCS EBI implementation in FQHCs, provide insights into designing nuanced, practical implementation strategies to improve cancer control in a critical setting.

Abstract Background Black individuals in the United States (US) have a higher incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to other racial groups, and CRC is the second leading cause of death among Hispanic/Latino populations in the US. Patient navigation is an evidence-based approach to narrow inequities in cancer screening among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. Despite this, limited healthcare systems have implemented patient navigation for screening at scale. Methods We are conducting a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of 15 primary care clinics with six steps of six-month duration to scale a patient navigation program to improve screening rates among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. After six months of baseline data collection with no intervention we will randomize clinics, whereby three clinics will join the intervention arm every six months until all clinics cross over to intervention. During the intervention roll out we will conduct training and education for clinics, change infrastructure in the electronic health record, create stakeholder relationships, assess readiness, and deliver iterative feedback. Framed by the Practical, Robust Implementation Sustainment Model (PRISM) we will focus on effectiveness, reach, provider adoption, and implementation. We will document adaptations to both the patient navigation intervention and to implementation strategies. To address health equity, we will engage multilevel stakeholder voices through interviews and a community advisory board to plan, deliver, adapt, measure, and disseminate study progress. Provider-level feedback will include updates on disparities in screening orders and completions. Discussion Primary care clinics are poised to close disparity gaps in CRC screening completion but may lack an understanding of the magnitude of these gaps and how to address them. We aim to understand how to tailor a patient navigation program for CRC screening to patients and providers across diverse clinics with wide variation in baseline screening rates, payor mix, proximity to specialty care, and patient volume. Findings from this study will inform other primary care practices and health systems on effective and sustainable strategies to deliver patient navigation for CRC screening among racial and ethnic minorities. Trial registration NCT06401174

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death and the second most common cancer diagnosis among the Hispanic population in the United States. However, CRC screening prevalence remains lower among Hispanic adults than among non-Hispanic white adults. To reduce CRC screening disparities, efforts to implement CRC screening evidence-based interventions in primary care organizations (PCOs) must consider their potential effect on existing screening disparities. More research is needed to understand how to leverage existing implementation science methodologies to improve health disparities. The Coaching to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Equity (CoachIQ) pilot study explores whether integrating two implementation science tools, Causal Pathway Diagrams and practice facilitation, is a feasible and effective way to address CRC screening disparities among Hispanic patients. Methods: We used a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design to evaluate feasibility and assess initial signals of effectiveness of the CoachIQ approach. Three PCOs received coaching from CoachIQ practice facilitators over a 12-month period. Three non-equivalent comparison group PCOs received coaching during the same period as participants in a state quality improvement program. We conducted descriptive analyses of screening rates and coaching activities. Results: The CoachIQ practice facilitators discussed equity, facilitated prioritization of QI activities, and reviewed CRC screening disparities during a higher proportion of coaching encounters than the comparison group practice facilitator. While the mean overall CRC screening rate in the comparison PCOs increased from 34 to 41%, the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients did not increase from 30%. In contrast, the mean overall CRC screening rate at the CoachIQ PCOs increased from 41 to 44%, and the mean CRC screening rate for Hispanic patients increased from 35 to 39%. Conclusions: The CoachIQ program merges two implementation science methodologies, practice facilitation and causal pathway diagrams, to help PCOs focus quality improvement efforts on improving CRC screening while also reducing screening disparities. Results from this pilot study demonstrate key differences between CoachIQ facilitation and standard facilitation, and point to the potential of the CoachIQ approach to decrease disparities in CRC screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hispanics in the United States (U.S.) have previously exhibited lower guideline-concordant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake than non-Hispanic (NH) Whites, with disparities accentuated in foreign-born Hispanics, however it is unclear whether nativity-related CRC screening disparities have changed in the last two decades and whether these disparities are attenuated after adjusting for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. We evaluated CRC screening adherence in foreign- and U.S.-born Hispanics compared to U.S.-born NH Whites. We used 2019 National Health Interview Survey data to compare the prevalence of up-to-date CRC screening per the 2019 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations among Hispanic nativity subgroups (i.e., foreign- and U.S.-born) and U.S.-born NH Whites using unadjusted and adjusted weighted log-linked binomial regression. Foreign- and U.S.-born Hispanics had a significantly lower unadjusted prevalence of up-to-date screening than U.S.-born NH Whites (47.18% and 64.18% versus 70.70%; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0109, respectively). After adjusting for socioeconomic and demographic differences, the prevalence of up-to-date screening was lower in foreign-born Hispanics compared to U.S.-born NH Whites [adjusted prevalence ratio 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.70–0.91)]; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between U.S.-born Hispanics and NH Whites. Our results suggest a low screening uptake in foreign-born Hispanics independent of socioeconomic and demographic differences. Future interventions should target foreign-born Hispanics to address disparities and promote early detection and prevention of CRC regardless of socioeconomic factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55–0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01538550) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Isfahan, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has been used since January 2016 as part of the Iran's Package of Essential Non-communicable Diseases (IraPEN) program for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The test is recommended for people who are 50-70 years old. Then, those with positive results would be referred for colonoscopy. This study aims to describe the uptake of the program and its outcome. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed by collecting data from Isfahan Vice-Chancellor for Health database for this study purpose. The number of participators, the number of positive FIT, and the number of detected polyps or cancers were determined. Results: Between 2016 and 2019, the number of participants in the program reached 345 207 individuals (nearly 40% of the eligible population of 874 674). Totally, 21 264 participants (6.1%) had positive tests, of whom about 20% underwent the recommended colonoscopy with available reports, and 971 (24%) and 110 (3%) patients were diagnosed with polyps and CRC, respectively. Conclusion: Over four years of screening with FIT in Isfahan, 40% of the eligible population participated. Among those with positive FIT results, 20% underwent colonoscopy, and approximately 26% of these individuals were identified as having polyps or cancer. This study provides valuable insights into the uptake and outcomes of a population-based CRC screening program in Isfahan, Iran. The findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to increase participation rates and improve the detection of polyps and CRC cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concordance between a person's values and the test or treatment they ultimately receive is widely considered to be an essential outcome for good decision quality. There is little research, however, on why patients receive "discordant" care. A large, randomized trial of decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening provided an opportunity to assess why some patients received a different test than the one they preferred at an earlier time point. Methods: Of 688 patients who participated in the trial, 43 received a different CRC screening test than the one they selected after viewing a decision aid 6 mo prior. These patients answered 2 brief, open-ended questions about the reasons for this discordance. The research team analyzed their answers using qualitative description. Results: Patient responses reflected 6 major categories: barriers or risks of initially favored test, benefits of alternative test, costs or health insurance coverage, discussion with family or friends, provider factors or recommendation, and health issues. Conclusions: Some of the patients' explanations fit well with the informed concordance approach, which infers poor decision quality from the existence of discordant care, since in these cases it appears that the patient's values and preferences were not adequately respected. Other statements suggest that the patient had an informed rationale for changing their mind about which test to undergo. These cases may reflect high-quality decision making, despite the existence of discordance as measured in the trial. This analysis highlights a major challenge to a popular approach for assessing decision quality, the difficulty of normatively assessing the quality of decision making when apparent discordant care has been provided, and the need to assess patient values and preference over time. Highlights: Value-choice concordance is an accepted measure for assessing decision quality in decision aid trials, but greater exploration of apparently discordant care challenges key assumptions of this method; this study provides evidence that discordance as typically measured may not always reflect low-quality patient decision making. Researchers evaluating decision aids and assessing decision quality should consider the use of qualitative methods to supplement measures of decision quality and consider assessing patient preferences at multiple time points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) is critical to increasing survival rates. Computerized risk prediction models hold great promise for identifying individuals at high risk for CRC. In order to utilize such models effectively in a population-wide screening setting, development and validation should be based on cohorts that are similar to the target population. Aim: Establish a risk prediction model for CRC diagnosis based on electronic health records (EHR) from subjects eligible for CRC screening. Methods: A retrospective cohort study utilizing the EHR data of Clalit Health Services (CHS). The study includes CHS members aged 50–74 who were eligible for CRC screening from January 2013 to January 2019. The model was trained to predict receiving a CRC diagnosis within 2 years of the index date. Approximately 20,000 EHR demographic and clinical features were considered. Results: The study includes 2935 subjects with CRC diagnosis, and 1,133,457 subjects without CRC diagnosis. Incidence values of CRC among subjects in the top 1% risk scores were higher than baseline (2.3% vs 0.3%; lift 8.38; P value < 0.001). Cumulative event probabilities increased with higher model scores. Model-based risk stratification among subjects with a positive FOBT, identified subjects with more than twice the risk for CRC compared to FOBT alone. Conclusions: We developed an individualized risk prediction model for CRC that can be utilized as a complementary decision support tool for healthcare providers to precisely identify subjects at high risk for CRC and refer them for confirmatory testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Korean Americans have consistently reported the underutilization of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, despite their high rates of CRC incidence and mortality. Research has indicated suboptimal CRC knowledge in Korean Americans as one of the main barriers to their recommended CRC screening. Also, research has shown the potential of online health information seeking (OHIS) to improve cancer knowledge and gender-based differences in the link between OHIS and cancer knowledge. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association between OHIS and CRC knowledge and the moderating effect of gender in this association among Korean Americans. A cross-sectional survey with purposive sampling was conducted of 421 Korean Americans aged 50–75 years in the Southeastern U.S. Three-step hierarchical multiple-regression analyses were performed to investigate if three blocks of variables—Block 1: control variables (sociodemographics and health-related information), Block 2: independent variables (OHIS and gender), and Block 3: an (OHIS × gender) interaction term—significantly reduce unexplained variance in CRC knowledge. The analyses showed that the final model fits best accounting for 29.3% of the variance in CRC knowledge. Also, the analyses showed that OHIS was positively associated with CRC knowledge and gender moderated the association between OHIS and CRC knowledge. The findings close the knowledge gap existing in the body of literature on the connection of OHIS to CRC knowledge in Korean Americans. The findings also extend the understanding of gender-specific approaches leveraging OHIS for CRC prevention education among Korean Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) rates are dropping among adults aged 50 and above, but recent studies show a rise in cases among those under 50. This study compares CRC rates in EU15+ countries to see if similar trends exist in regions with comparable "Western lifestyle" risk factors. Data from 1990 to 2019 were analyzed, focusing on incidence, mortality, and mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) across age groups. Globally, the change in percentage rates of CRC increased for all ages over this 30-year period, especially among males (75.9%) and females (27.7%) aged 25–49. This rise was mirrored in 15 of 19 EU15+ countries for males and 16 for females in the same age group. While female mortality rates decreased globally, male rates increased across all ages, highlighting the need to address modifiable risk factors and implement early standardized screening to detect CRC in younger populations. The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the U.S. is declining in adults 50 years and older; however, recent studies suggest an increasing disease burden among adults under age 50. This study aims to compare the incidence, mortality, and mortality-to-incidence ratios (MIRs) of CRC in EU15+ countries to determine if similar age-stratified occurrences are observed across these countries with similar "Western lifestyle"-related risk factors. Incidence and mortality rates for CRC between 1990 and 2019 were extracted using the Global Burden of Disease database. The data were age-stratified into groups between ages 25–49, 50–69, and greater than 69 years. We observed that the incidence of CRC increased globally for all age groups, with the highest increase observed for males (75.9%) and females (27.7%) aged 25–49. A similar trend was observed in 15 of the 19 EU15+ countries for males and 16 of the 19 EU15+ countries for females aged 25–49. Global mortality rates decreased for all age groups in females but increased for males in all age groups. This raises concerns regarding potentially modifiable risk factors contributing to increased CRC development and underscores the importance of implementing standardized screening at an earlier stage to ensure adequate detection in the younger population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 introduced new barriers to health care including cancer screenings. This study evaluated the role of pandemic- and copay-related barriers to colonoscopy and the extent to which home-based testing methods were utilized. Methods: A cross-sectional survey assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) attitudes and screening early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Respondents (342; 50.37% female) were 62.32 (SD = 6.87) years old. Roughly half were White/Caucasian (329; 48.45%); 29.75% were Black/African American (202); and 21.80% were another race (148). Roughly two-thirds were up-to-date with CRC screening (459; 67.59%). In an adjusted model, those with a higher agreement that concerns about COVID-19 delayed scheduling their colonoscopy (OR =.79; 95% CI:.08,.63; P =.045) and concerns about copays delayed scheduling their colonoscopy (OR =.73; 95% CI:.73,.57; P =.02) were less likely to be up-to-date on screening. In another adjusted model, those screened during the pandemic were significantly more likely to be screened via an at-home test (OR = 10.93; 95% CI: 5.95, 20.27; P <.001). Discussion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, screening copay-related concerns persisted and were significantly higher among those not up-to-date with CRC screening. Increased at-home testing and addressing copay barriers may increase CRC screening adherence now and in future infectious disease outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reducing disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and mortality remains a priority. Mitigation strategies to reduce these disparities have largely been unsuccessful. The primary aim is to determine variables in models of healthcare utilization and their association with CRC screening and mortality in North Carolina. A cross-sectional analysis of publicly available data across North Carolina using variable reduction techniques with clustering to evaluate association of CRC screening rates and mortality was performed. Three million sixty-five thousand five hundred thirty-seven residents (32.1%) were aged 50 y or more. More than two-thirds (68.8%) were White, while 20.5% were Black. Approximately 61% aged 50 y or more underwent CRC screening (range: 44.0%-80.5%) and had a CRC mortality of 44.8 per 100,000 (range 22.8 to 76.6 per 100,000). Cluster analysis identified two factors, designated social economic education index (factor 1) and rural provider index (factor 2) for inclusion in the multivariate analysis. CRC screening rates were associated with factor 1, consisting of socioeconomic and education variables, and factor 2, comprised of the number of providers per 10,000 individuals aged 50 y or more and rurality. An increase in both factors 1 and 2 by one point would result in an increase in CRC screening rated by 6.8%. CRC mortality was associated with factor 2. An increase in one point in factor 1 results in a decrease in mortality risk by 10.9%. In North Carolina, using variable reduction with clustering, CRC screening rates were associated with the inter-relationship of the number of providers and rurality, while CRC mortality was associated with the inter-relationship of social, economic, and education variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Black individuals in the United States (US) have a higher incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to other racial groups, and CRC is the second leading cause of death among Hispanic/Latino populations in the US. Patient navigation is an evidence-based approach to narrow inequities in cancer screening among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. Despite this, limited healthcare systems have implemented patient navigation for screening at scale. Methods: We are conducting a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of 15 primary care clinics with six steps of six-month duration to scale a patient navigation program to improve screening rates among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. After six months of baseline data collection with no intervention we will randomize clinics, whereby three clinics will join the intervention arm every six months until all clinics cross over to intervention. During the intervention roll out we will conduct training and education for clinics, change infrastructure in the electronic health record, create stakeholder relationships, assess readiness, and deliver iterative feedback. Framed by the Practical, Robust Implementation Sustainment Model (PRISM) we will focus on effectiveness, reach, provider adoption, and implementation. We will document adaptations to both the patient navigation intervention and to implementation strategies. To address health equity, we will engage multilevel stakeholder voices through interviews and a community advisory board to plan, deliver, adapt, measure, and disseminate study progress. Provider-level feedback will include updates on disparities in screening orders and completions. Discussion: Primary care clinics are poised to close disparity gaps in CRC screening completion but may lack an understanding of the magnitude of these gaps and how to address them. We aim to understand how to tailor a patient navigation program for CRC screening to patients and providers across diverse clinics with wide variation in baseline screening rates, payor mix, proximity to specialty care, and patient volume. Findings from this study will inform other primary care practices and health systems on effective and sustainable strategies to deliver patient navigation for CRC screening among racial and ethnic minorities. Trial registration: NCT06401174 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Our study aimed to examine whether receipt of follow-up care plans is associated with greater guideline-concordant CRC screening stratified by breast, prostate, and lung cancer survivors. Methods: We used data from years 2016, 2018, and 2020 of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System on 3339 eligible treatment-utilizing cancer survivors with complete treatment. We performed descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression to examine the mentioned association. Results: We observed that 83.9% of breast and 88.2% of prostate cancer survivors with follow-care plans received CRC screening (p-value < 0.001). The lowest CRC screening use was observed among lung cancer (70.8%). In multivariable analysis, receipt of follow-up care plans was strongly associated with greater odds of receiving CRC screening in breast (OR, 2.67; 95% CI: 1.71–4.16) and prostate (OR, 3.81; 95% CI: 2.30–6.31) cancer survivors. Regardless of provider type, 84 to 88% reduced likelihood of receipt of CRC screening when they received follow-up care plans among lung cancer survivors. Among those without follow-up care plans, breast (OR, 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09–0.92) and lung (OR, 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01–0.25) cancer survivors who received care from general practices were less likely to receive CRC screening compared to those who received care from non-general practices. Conclusions: Receipt of follow-up care plans was associated with greater CRC screening use in breast and prostate cancers. Lung cancer survivors demonstrated lower screening use despite receipt of follow-up care plans. Implication for Cancer Survivors: Patient and provider communication regarding CRC screening recommendation should be included in their follow-up care plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The multidisciplinary management of patients suffering from colorectal cancer (CRC) has significantly increased survival over the decades and surgery remains the only potentially curative option for it. However, despite the implementation of minimally invasive surgery and ERAS pathway, the overall morbidity and mortality remain quite high, especially in rural populations because of urban − rural disparities. The aim of the study is to analyze the characteristics and the surgical outcomes of a series of unselected CRC patients residing in two similar rural areas in Italy. A total of 648 consecutive patients of a median age of 73 years (IQR 64–81) was enrolled between 2017 and 2022 in a prospective database. Emergency admission (EA) was recorded in 221 patients (34.1%), and emergency surgery (ES) was required in 11.4% of the patients. Tumor resection and laparoscopic resection rates were 95.0% and 63.2%, respectively. The median length of stay was 8 days. The overall morbidity and mortality rates were 23.5% and 3.2%, respectively. EA was associated with increased median age (77.5 vs. 71 ys, p < 0.001), increased mean ASA Score (2.84 vs. 2.59; p = 0.002) and increased IV stage disease rate (25.3% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.001). EA was also associated with lower tumor resection rate (87.3% vs. 99.1%, p < 0.001), restorative resection rate (71.5 vs. 89.7%, p < 0.001), and laparoscopic resection rate (36.2 vs. 72.6%, p < 0.001). Increased mortality rates were associated with EA (7.2% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001), ES (11.1% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and age more than 80 years (5.8% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). In rural areas, high quality oncologic care can be delivered in CRC patients. However, the surgical outcomes are adversely affected by a still too high proportion of emergency presentation of elderly and frail patients that need additional intensive care supports beyond the surgical skill and alternative strategies for earlier detection of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Colorectal cancer is a common condition with an uncommon burden of disease, heterogeneity in manifestation, and no definitive treatment in the advanced stages. Renewed efforts to unravel the genetic drivers of colorectal cancer progression are paramount. Early-stage detection contributes to the success of cancer therapy and increases the likelihood of a favorable prognosis. Here, we have executed a comprehensive computational workflow aimed at uncovering the discrete stagewise genomic drivers of colorectal cancer progression. Methods Using the TCGA COADREAD expression data and clinical metadata, we constructed stage-specific linear models as well as contrast models to identify stage-salient differentially expressed genes. Stage-salient differentially expressed genes with a significant monotone trend of expression across the stages were identified as progression-significant biomarkers. The stage-salient genes were benchmarked using normals-augmented dataset, and cross-referenced with existing knowledge. The candidate biomarkers were used to construct the feature space for learning an optimal model for the digital screening of early-stage colorectal cancers. The candidate biomarkers were also examined for constructing a prognostic model based on survival analysis. Results Among the biomarkers identified are: CRLF1, CALB2, STAC2, UCHL1, KCNG1 (stage-I salient), KLHL34, LPHN3, GREM2, ADCY5, PLAC2, DMRT3 (stage-II salient), PIGR, HABP2, SLC26A9 (stage-III salient), GABRD, DKK1, DLX3, CST6, HOTAIR (stage-IV salient), and CDH3, KRT80, AADACL2, OTOP2, FAM135B, HSP90AB1 (top linear model genes). In particular the study yielded 31 genes that are progression-significant such as ESM1, DKK1, SPDYC, IGFBP1, BIRC7, NKD1, CXCL13, VGLL1, PLAC1, SPERT, UPK2, and interestingly three members of the LY6G6 family. Significant monotonic linear model genes included HIGD1A, ACADS, PEX26, and SPIB. A feature space of just seven biomarkers, namely ESM1, DHRS7C, OTOP3, AADACL2, LPHN3, GABRD, and LPAR1, was sufficient to optimize a RandomForest model that achieved > 98% balanced accuracy (and performant recall) of cancer vs. normal on external validation. Design of an optimal multivariate model based on survival analysis yielded a prognostic panel of three stage-IV salient genes, namely HOTAIR, GABRD, and DKK1. Based on the above sparse signatures, we have developed COADREADx, a web-server for potentially assisting colorectal cancer screening and patient risk stratification. COADREADx provides uncertainty measures for its predictions and needs clinical validation. It has been deployed for experimental non-commercial use at: https://apalanialab.shinyapps.io/coadreadx/.

Objective: We sought to examine the influence of social needs on the relationship between cancer history and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization among adults in the United States. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Our outcome of interest was utilization of guideline-concordant CRC screening and exposures of interest were cancer history/levels of social needs. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the association. Results: Among 74,743 eligible adults, a majority did not have a personal history of cancer (87.9 %), had at least one social need (58.4 %), and had undergone CRC screening (72.2 %). In multivariable analysis, a history of cancer was positively associated with use of CRC screening (OR = 1.59, 95 %CI, 1.35 – 1.87). Having at least one social need was associated with lower likelihood of being screened (one social need: OR = 0.85 95 %CI, 0.76 – 0.95; two + social needs: OR = 0.77, 95 % CI, 0.69 – 0.87). When exploring the effects of social needs, adults without a history of cancer who reported at least one need were 12–20 % less likely to be screened for CRC. Conclusions: A personal history of cancer was associated with greater utilization of CRC screening, whilst having at least one social need had lower screening use. Having social needs plays an important role in reducing screening uptake among adults without a history of cancer. Integrated care that considers both cancer history and social needs may have implications for improved adherence of CRC screening recommendations.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant global health challenge, with approximately 1.9 million new cases and 930,000 deaths reported in 2020. The highest incidence rates are observed in Australia/New Zealand and Europe, while lower rates are found in Africa and Southern Asia. Projections for 2040 indicate a rise to 3.2 million new cases and 1.6 million deaths, particularly in high development index regions, underscoring the need for improved prevention and detection. Despite advancements in screening methods and polyp removal, CRC mortality remains high in the United States due to non-adherence to recommended tests. Barriers such as cost and lack of insurance contribute to this issue. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based testing offers a promising alternative, with studies showing 83.1% sensitivity for CRC and 89.6% specificity for advanced neoplasia, comparable to traditional screening methods but with reduced risk of adverse events. The recent FDA approval of the Shield blood test, which has demonstrated 83% efficacy in detecting late-stage CRC, represents a significant advancement. Incorporating cfDNA testing into screening protocols could improve accessibility and compliance, especially for those unwilling or unable to undergo more invasive procedures. Regular evaluation of cfDNA testing, including Shield, is essential for enhancing CRC screening strategies and patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundIn 2017, the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN) established the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Program to provide technical assistance and financial support to improve CRC screening processes, and outcomes in a consortium of community health centers (CHCs) serving low-income communities in San Francisco. The purpose of this study was twofold: to evaluate the perceived influence of the support provided by the CRC Screening Program's Task Force on CRC screening processes and outcomes in these settings and to identify facilitators and barriers to SF CAN-supported CRC screening activities before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsSemi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with consortium leaders, medical directors, quality improvement team members, and clinic screening champions. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed for themes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to develop the interview questions and organize the analysis.ResultsTwenty-two participants were interviewed. The most commonly cited facilitators of improved screening processes included the expertise, funding, screening resources, regular follow-up, and sustained engagement with clinic leaders provided by the task force. The most salient barriers identified were patient characteristics, such as housing instability; staffing challenges, such as being understaffed and experiencing high staff turnover; and clinic-level challenges, such as lack of ability to implement and sustain formalized patient navigation strategies, and changes in clinic priorities due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other competing health care priorities.ConclusionsImplementing CRC screening programs in a consortium of CHCs is inherently challenging. Technical assistance from the Task Force was viewed positively and helped to mitigate challenges both before and during the pandemic. Future research should explore opportunities to increase the robustness of technical assistance offered by groups such as SF CAN to support cancer screening activities in CHCs serving low-income communities.

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.

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to be a major cause of death in the U.S. despite the availability of effective screening tools. U.S. Latinos have lower rates of CRC screening and higher rates of death due to colorectal disease compared to non-Hispanic whites. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve medically underserved populations, including many Latino patients. Given the low CRC screening rates, identifying culturally sensitive and cost-effective methods of promoting screening is a priority for many FQHCs. Methods We interviewed FQHC leaders and providers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of a multilevel, multicomponent (ML-MC) CRC screening intervention (i.e., promotor navigation and group-based education) in FQHCs. A rapid qualitative analysis approach was used to identify themes organized according to the following CFIR constructs: intervention characteristics, outer and inner settings, and characteristics of the individual. Results We completed interviews with 13 healthcare professionals in leadership positions at six FQHCs. The participating FQHCs perceived the ML-MC screening CRC program as feasible and expressed interest in implementing the program at their sites. Facilitators included financial incentives for increasing screening rates, the need for patient education programming, and involving promotores to support the work of clinical teams. Barriers included concerns about available resources to implement new programs, lack of federal reimbursement for health education, competing priorities of other health concerns, and the need for more resources for confirmatory screening and treatment following a positive screen. Conclusions FQHCs provide essential primary care to millions of underserved patients in the U.S. and have the ability and motivation to provide screenings for colorectal cancer. Partnering with an academic institution to deliver a group-based, promotor-led CRC screening intervention for patients not up to date with screening could help increase screening rates. By identifying the specific barriers and facilitators to implementing CRC intervention, findings suggest that group-based, promotor-led interventions are a promising approach.

Background. Distributing CRC screening through pharmacies, a highly accessible health service, may create opportunities for more equitable access to CRC screening. However, providing CRC screening in a new context introduces a substantial implementation challenge.Methods. We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with community pharmacists practicing in Washington state and North Carolina about distributing fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) to patients in the pharmacy. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide analysis.Results. Pharmacists believed that delivering FITs was highly compatible with their environment, workflow, and scope of practice. While knowledge about FIT eligibility criteria varied, pharmacists felt comfortable screening patients. They identified standardized eligibility criteria, patient-facing educational materials, and continuing education as essential design features. Pharmacists proposed adapting existing pharmacy electronic health record systems for patient reminders/prompts to facilitate FIT completion. While pharmacists felt confident that they could discuss test results with patients, they also expressed a need for stronger communication and care coordination with primary care providers.Discussion. When designing a pharmacy-based CRC screening program, pharmacists desired programmatic procedures to fit their current knowledge and context. Findings indicate that if proper attention is given to multi-level factors, FIT delivery can be extended to pharmacies.

Comprehensive evaluation of cancer screening activities based on individual experiences is urgently needed to address the burden of cancer among Métis people. In this co-designed and co-led study, a cancer screening questionnaire developed for Métis people to evaluate their cancer screening histories and to explore barriers and facilitators to cancer screening was used. Adult Métis Albertans were invited to participate in the anonymous survey through a multi-modal strategy used for community consultations. Descriptive analyses compared responses between regions, age groups and geographic locations. In total, 370 participants who identified as Métis consented and contributed responses between 12 September and 2 December 2022. Female respondents reported higher rates of cervical and breast cancer screening (>94%) and lower rates of colorectal cancer screening (67–78%). Most of the barriers and facilitators were rated as very important, especially access to reliable and accurate information on screening, risks and benefits of cancer screening, explanation of the test results or procedures, trust in their health care provider(s) and health care system and access to a primary health care provider. This study fills a crucial gap that can inform targeted interventions to increase cancer screening awareness and rates among Métis Albertans and reduce their cancer burden.

Latinos in the United States have low rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening even though CRC is the third leading cause of cancer death among Latinos. This qualitative study aimed to understand and compare the perspectives of clinical staff (CS) and Latino community members (LCMs) in an urban Southern California community regarding barriers and facilitators of CRC screening. Through purposive sampling, 39 LCMs (mean age: 59.4 years, 79.5% female) were recruited to participate in one of five focus groups, and 17 CS (mean age: 38.8 years, 64.7% female) were recruited to participate in semi-structured in-depth interviews, along with a demographic survey. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, translated, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Demographic data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Findings suggest that CS and LCMs have both similar and opposing perspectives with regard to barriers and facilitators of CRC screening. Themes discussed included attitudes towards CRC screening, CRC knowledge, access to resources, commitments and responsibilities, social support, vicarious learning, patient-provider communication, trust, and social relationships. Study findings can be used to guide interventions and policies to improve access to CRC screening among LCMs.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems, including federally qualified health centers, experienced disruptions in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. National organizations called for greater use of at-home stool-based testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results to limit (in-person) colonoscopy exams to people with acute symptoms or who were high risk. This stool-test-first strategy may also be useful for adults with low-risk adenomas who are due for surveillance colonoscopy. We argue that colonoscopy is overused as a first-line screening method in low- and average-risk adults and as a surveillance tool among adults with small adenomas. Yet, simultaneously, many people do not receive much-needed colonoscopies. Delivering the right screening tests at intervals that reduce the risk of CRC, while minimizing patient inconvenience and procedural risks, can strengthen health-care systems. Risk stratification could improve efficiency of CRC screening, but because models that adequately predict risk are years away from clinical use, we need to optimize use of currently available technology—that is, low-cost fecal testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need to adapt to resource constraints around colonoscopies and showed that increased use of stool-based testing was possible. Learning how to adapt to such constraints without sacrificing patients' health, particularly for patients who receive care at federally qualified health centers, should be a priority for CRC prevention research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]