Patterns of Care Following a Positive Fecal Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods. DESIGN: This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50-89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010-2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients. MAIN MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing. KEY RESULTS: A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Older age (65-75 vs. 50-64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67-1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.

Surveillance Colonoscopy Findings in Older Adults With a History of Colorectal Adenomas.

Importance: Postpolypectomy surveillance is a common colonoscopy indication in older adults; however, guidelines provide little direction on when to stop surveillance in this population. Objective: To estimate surveillance colonoscopy yields in older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study included individuals 70 to 85 years of age who received surveillance colonoscopy at a large, community-based US health care system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019; had an adenoma detected 12 or more months previously; and had at least 1 year of health plan enrollment before surveillance. Individuals were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer (CRC), hereditary CRC syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, or prior colectomy or if the surveillance colonoscopy had an inadequate bowel preparation or was incomplete. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to February 22, 2024. Exposures: Age (70-74, 75-79, or 80-85 years) at surveillance colonoscopy and prior adenoma finding (ie, advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were yields of CRC, advanced adenoma, and advanced neoplasia overall (all ages) by age group and by both age group and prior adenoma finding. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with advanced neoplasia detection at surveillance. Results: Of 9740 surveillance colonoscopies among 9601 patients, 5895 (60.5%) were in men, and 5738 (58.9%), 3225 (33.1%), and 777 (8.0%) were performed in those aged 70-74, 75-79, and 80-85 years, respectively. Overall, CRC yields were found in 28 procedures (0.3%), advanced adenoma in 1141 (11.7%), and advanced neoplasia in 1169 (12.0%); yields did not differ significantly across age groups. Overall, CRC yields were higher for colonoscopies among patients with a prior advanced adenoma vs nonadvanced adenoma (12 of 2305 [0.5%] vs 16 of 7435 [0.2%]; P = .02), and the same was observed for advanced neoplasia (380 of 2305 [16.5%] vs 789 of 7435 [10.6%]; P < .001). Factors associated with advanced neoplasia at surveillance were prior advanced adenoma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.44-1.88), body mass index of 30 or greater vs less than 25 (AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.44), and having ever smoked tobacco (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30). Asian or Pacific Islander race was inversely associated with advanced neoplasia (AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of surveillance colonoscopy yield in older adults, CRC detection was rare regardless of prior adenoma finding, whereas the advanced neoplasia yield was 12.0% overall. Yields were higher among those with a prior advanced adenoma than among those with prior nonadvanced adenoma and did not increase significantly with age. These findings can help inform whether to continue surveillance colonoscopy in older adults.

Predicting Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Adenoma Removal in a Large Community-Based Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance guidelines categorize individuals as high or low risk for future colorectal cancer (CRC) based primarily on their prior polyp characteristics, but this approach is imprecise, and consideration of other risk factors may improve postpolypectomy risk stratification. METHODS: Among patients who underwent a baseline colonoscopy with removal of a conventional adenoma in 2004-2016, we compared the performance for postpolypectomy CRC risk prediction (through 2020) of a comprehensive model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and prior polyp findings (i.e., adenoma with advanced histology, polyp size ≥10 mm, and sessile serrated adenoma or traditional serrated adenoma) with a polyp model featuring only polyp findings. Models were developed using Cox regression. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Among 95,001 patients randomly divided 70:30 into model development (n = 66,500) and internal validation cohorts (n = 28,501), 495 CRC were subsequently diagnosed; 354 in the development cohort and 141 in the validation cohort. Models demonstrated adequate calibration, and the comprehensive model demonstrated superior predictive performance to the polyp model in the development cohort (AUC 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.74 vs AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64, respectively) and validation cohort (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75 vs AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67, respectively). DISCUSSION: A comprehensive CRC risk prediction model featuring patient age, diabetes diagnosis, and baseline colonoscopy indication and polyp findings was more accurate at predicting postpolypectomy CRC diagnosis than a model based on polyp findings alone.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning One Year after a Negative Fecal Occult Blood Test, among Screen-Eligible 76- to 85-Year-Olds.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is universally recommended for adults ages 45 to 75 years. Noninvasive fecal occult blood tests are effective screening tests recommended by guidelines. However, empirical evidence to inform older adults' decisions about whether to continue screening is sparse, especially for individuals with prior screening. METHODS: This study used a retrospective cohort of older adults at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and Parkland Health. Beginning 1 year following a negative stool-based screening test, cumulative risks of colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality (accounting for deaths from other causes), and non-colorectal cancer mortality were estimated. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 with a negative fecal occult blood test 1 year ago (N = 118,269) was 0.23% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20%-0.26%] after 2 years and 1.21% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.30%) after 8 years. Cumulative colorectal cancer mortality was 0.03% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%) after 2 years and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.28%-0.39%) after 8 years. Cumulative risk of death from non-colorectal cancer causes was 4.81% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.96%) after 2 years and 28.40% (95% CI, 27.95%-28.85%) after 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among 76- to 85-year-olds with a recent negative stool-based test, cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality estimates were low, especially within 2 years; death from other causes was over 100 times more likely than death from colorectal cancer. IMPACT: These findings of low absolute colorectal cancer risk, and comparatively higher risk of death from other causes, can inform decision-making regarding whether and when to continue colorectal cancer screening beyond age 75 among screen-eligible adults.

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk. METHODS: Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk. RESULTS: Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82). CONCLUSIONS: A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning Ten Years after a Negative Colonoscopy, among Screen-Eligible Adults 76 to 85 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes. RESULTS: Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes. IMPACT: Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Beyond Screening: An Interim Report and Analysis of a Multimodal Initiative to Decrease Colon Cancer Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer, a potentially preventable and curable cancer, remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in the United States. In 2010 the researchers undertook a multifaceted initiative to reduce colon cancer mortality rates by 50% over 10 years. METHODS: A baseline literature review of preventable causes of colon cancer mortality and review of 50 deaths from colon cancer in one institution identified a set of care process improvements that could be implemented to decrease colon cancer mortality. In 2017 a second mortality review identified a second set of care process improvements that were subsequently implemented. Compliance with these processes was monitored along with age and gender-adjusted mortality rates. RESULTS: Identified care process improvements included improving the follow-up of patients with rectal bleeding and presumed iron deficiency anemia and improving the reliability of postsurgical surveillance for cancer recurrence, decreasing elapsed time from surgery to chemotherapy, increasing surgical referrals for patients with advanced colon cancer, increasing the upper age limit and overall rate of colon cancer screening, increasing vitamin D and aspirin use, and monitoring and increasing the adenoma detection rate. Compliance with these processes improved for most measures, including screening (73.7% to 79.9%), adenoma detection rates on screening colonoscopy (30% to 36% for women and 42% to 49% for men), and chemotherapy within 35 days of surgery for colon cancer (39.0% to 51.9%). Age- and gender-adjusted mortality decreased from 13.8 per 100,000 in 2009-2011 to 10.5 per 100,000 in 2016-2018. CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement program was feasible to implement, resulted in process improvements, and decreased colon cancer mortality over seven years.

Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric. Objective: To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017. Exposures: The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Results: Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Fecal Immunochemical Testing, Colonoscopy Services, and Colorectal Neoplasia Detection in a Large United States Community-based Population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical services globally, including colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnostic testing. We investigated the pandemic's impact on fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening, colonoscopy utilization, and colorectal neoplasia detection across 21 medical centers in a large integrated health care organization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in Kaiser Permanente Northern California patients ages 18 to 89 years in 2019 and 2020 and measured changes in the numbers of mailed, completed, and positive FITs; colonoscopies; and cases of colorectal neoplasia detected by colonoscopy in 2020 vs 2019. RESULTS: FIT kit mailings ceased in mid-March through April 2020 but then rebounded and there was an 8.7% increase in kits mailed compared with 2019. With the later mailing of FIT kits, there were 9.0% fewer FITs completed and 10.1% fewer positive tests in 2020 vs 2019. Colonoscopy volumes declined 79.4% in April 2020 compared with April 2019 but recovered to near pre-pandemic volumes in September through December, resulting in a 26.9% decline in total colonoscopies performed in 2020. The number of patients diagnosed by colonoscopy with CRC and advanced adenoma declined by 8.7% and 26.9%, respectively, in 2020 vs 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic led to fewer FIT screenings and colonoscopies in 2020 vs 2019; however, after the lifting of shelter-in-place orders, FIT screenings exceeded, and colonoscopy volumes nearly reached numbers from those same months in 2019. Overall, there was an 8.7% reduction in CRC cases diagnosed by colonoscopy in 2020. These data may help inform the development of strategies for CRC screening and diagnostic testing during future national emergencies.

Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Programmatic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening increases uptake, but the design and resources utilized for such models are not well known. We characterized program components and participation at each step in a large program that used mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with opportunistic colonoscopy. METHODS: Mixed-methods with site visits and retrospective cohort analysis of 51-75-year-old adults during 2017 in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system. RESULTS: Among 1,023,415 screening-eligible individuals, 405,963 (40%) were up to date with screening at baseline, and 507,401 of the 617,452 not up-to-date were mailed a FIT kit. Of the entire cohort (n = 1,023,415), 206,481 (20%) completed FIT within 28 days of mailing, another 61,644 (6%) after a robocall at week 4, and 40,438 others (4%) after a mailed reminder letter at week 6. There were over 800,000 medical record screening alerts generated and about 295,000 FIT kits distributed during patient office visits. About 100,000 FIT kits were ordered during direct-to-patient calls by medical assistants and 111,377 people (11%) completed FIT outside of the automated outreach period. Another 13,560 (1.3%) completed a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test unrelated to FIT. Cumulatively, 839,463 (82%) of those eligible were up to date with screening at the end of the year and 12,091 of 14,450 patients (83.7%) with positive FIT had diagnostic colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The >82% screening participation achieved in this program resulted from a combination of prior endoscopy (40%), large initial response to mailed FIT kits (20%), followed by smaller responses to automated reminders (10%) and personal contact (12%).

The effect of using fecal testing after a negative sigmoidoscopy on the risk of death from colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether receiving a fecal occult blood test after a negative sigmoidoscopy reduced mortality from colorectal cancer. METHODS: We used a nested case-control design with incidence-density matching in historical cohorts of 1,877,740 50-90-year-old persons during 2006-2012, in an integrated health-system setting. We selected 1758 average risk patients who died from colorectal cancer and 3503 matched colorectal cancer-free persons. Colorectal cancer-specific death was ascertained from cancer and mortality registries. Screening histories were determined from electronic and chart-audit clinical data in the 5- to 10-year period prior to the reference date. We evaluated receipt of subsequent fecal occult blood test within five years of the reference date among patients with negative sigmoidoscopy two to six years before the reference date. RESULTS: Of the 5261 patients, 831 patients (204 colorectal cancer deaths/627 controls) had either negative sigmoidoscopy only (n = 592) or negative sigmoidoscopy with subsequent screening fecal occult blood test (n = 239). Fifty-six (27.5%) of the 204 patients dying of colorectal cancer and 183 (29.2%) of the 627 colorectal cancer-free patients received fecal occult blood test following a negative sigmoidoscopy. Conditional regressions found no significant association between fecal occult blood test receipt and colorectal cancer death risk, overall (adjusted odds ratio = 0.93, confidence interval: 0.65-1.33), or for right (odds ratio = 1.02, confidence interval: 0.65-1.60) or left-colon/rectum (odds ratio = 0.77, confidence interval: 0.39-1.52) cancers. Similar results were obtained in sensitivity analyses with alternative exposure ascertainment windows or timing of fecal occult blood test. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that receipt of at least one fecal occult blood test during the several years after a negative sigmoidoscopy did not substantially reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

Primary Care Provider Beliefs and Recommendations About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four Healthcare Systems.

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients.

Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death After Adenoma Removal in a Large, Community-based Population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The long-term risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and CRC-related death following adenoma removal are uncertain. Data are needed to inform evidence-based surveillance guidelines, which vary in follow-up recommendations for some polyp types. Using data from a large, community-based integrated health care setting, we examined the risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings. METHODS: Participants at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were categorized as no-adenoma, low-risk adenoma, or high-risk adenoma. Participants were followed until the earliest of CRC diagnosis, death, health plan disenrollment, or December 31, 2017. Risks of CRC and related deaths among the high- and low-risk adenoma groups were compared with the no-adenoma group using Cox regression adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Among 186,046 patients, 64,422 met eligibility criteria (54.3% female; mean age, 61.6 ± 7.1 years; median follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy). Compared with the no-adenoma group (45,881 patients), the high-risk adenoma group (7563 patients) had a higher risk of CRC (hazard ratio [HR] 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.63) and related death (HR 3.94; 95% CI 1.90-6.56), whereas the low-risk adenoma group (10,978 patients) did not have a significant increase in risk of CRC (HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88) or related death (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.19-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: With up to 14 years of follow-up, high-risk adenomas were associated with an increased risk of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance. Low-risk adenomas were not associated with a significantly increased risk of CRC or related deaths. These results can inform current surveillance guidelines for high- and low-risk adenomas.

E-SCOPE: A Strategic Approach to Identify and Accelerate Implementation of Evidence-based Best Practices.

BACKGROUND: More than 50,000 randomized controlled trials and 8000 systematic reviews are anticipated to be published annually in the coming years. This huge volume of published findings makes it challenging for health care delivery systems to review new evidence, prioritize health care practices that warrant implementation, and implement best practices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the Kaiser Permanente Southern California E-SCOPE (Evidence Scanning for Clinical, Operational, and Practice Efficiencies) program, a systematic method to accelerate the implementation of evidence-based practices in clinical care settings. METHODS: E-SCOPE uses a strategic evidence search algorithm to conduct proactive literature searches to identify high-quality studies of interventions that yield improved health outcomes, quality and/or efficiency of care delivery, or cost savings. Each quarterly search yields 500-1000 abstracts; about 5%-10% of studies are selected each quarter for consideration for implementation. These studies are presented to clinical and operational leaders and other stakeholders to make the final determination regarding the implementation of the practice; E-SCOPE staff work closely with stakeholders to develop an implementation plan, identify practice owners, and ensure sustainability. RESULTS: The time from study publication to implementation using the E-SCOPE process ranges from 4 to 36 months, with an average of ∼16 months. Four examples of E-SCOPE implementation efforts, including new deployment, scale-up/spread, deimplementation, and operational efforts, are described. CONCLUSION: A single, centralized program for the proactive identification of the most up-to-date, evidence-based best practices and facilitated implementation can efficiently and effectively promote continuous learning and implementation in a learning health care system.

Strategies to Improve Follow-up After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests in a Community-Based Setting: A Mixed-Methods Study.

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

Index colonoscopy-related risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) are defined as those detected ≤10 years after an index colonoscopy negative for cancer, but modifiable risk factors are not well established in large, community-based populations. METHODS: We evaluated risk factors from the index colonoscopy for PCCRCs diagnosed 1 to 10 years after an index colonoscopy using a case-control design. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: A proximal polyp ≥10 mm (OR, 8.18; 95% CI, 4.59-14.60), distal polyp ≥10 mm (OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.65-6.58), adenoma with (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.83-5.68) and without advanced histology (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.37-2.55), and an incomplete colonoscopy (OR, 5.52; 95% CI, 2.98-10.21) were associated with PCCRC. Risk factors for early versus late cancers (12-36 months vs >36 months to 10 years after examination) included incomplete polyp excision in the colonic segment of the subsequent cancer (OR, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.35-9.65); failure to examine the segment (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.27-4.60); and a polyp ≥10 mm in the segment (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.53-3.70). A total of 559 of 1206 patients with PCCRC (46.4%) had 1 or more risk factors that were significant for PCCRC (incomplete examination, large polyp, or any adenoma). CONCLUSIONS: In a large community-based study with comprehensive capture of PCCRCs, almost half of PCCRCs had potentially modifiable factors related to polyp surveillance or removal and examination completeness. These represent potential high-yield targets to further increase the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.