Get screened: a randomized trial of the incremental benefits of reminders, recall, and outreach on cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening. INTERVENTIONS: We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). MAIN MEASURES: Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. KEY RESULTS: Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.

Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. DESIGN: Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors. SUBJECTS: All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance. INTERVENTION: The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of cancer screening at 1 year. KEY RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 185) or usual care (n = 181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p = 0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p = 0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.

A multimodal intervention to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a safety-net practice.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding interventions designed to improve cancer screening rates in safety-net practices with "real world" patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a multimodal intervention on mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in a safety-net practice caring for underserved patients. METHODS: At an inner-city family medicine practice, all patients past due for mammography or CRC screening were assigned to receive or not receive a screening promotion intervention based on their medical record number. The 12-month intervention included outreach to patients (tailored letters, automated and personal phone calls) and point-of-care patient and clinician prompts. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00818857. RESULTS: We enrolled 469 participants aged 40 to 74 years, including 28% African Americans, 5% Latinos, 25% with Medicaid, and 10% without any form of insurance. Participants in the intervention group showed statistically significantly higher rates of cancer screening; rates were 41% vs 16.8% for mammography and 28.8% vs 10% for CRC screening. These findings were confirmed in multivariable analysis. Similar relative improvements in screening were seen across race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and insurance groups. DISCUSSION: A multimodal intervention shows promise for improving rates of mammography and colorectal cancer screening within a safety-net practice. Further study will identify the most cost-effective components of the intervention.

Localized expression of small RNA inhibitors in human cells.

Several types of small RNAs have been proposed as gene expression repressors with great potential for use in gene therapy. RNA polymerase III (pol III) provides an ideal means of expressing small RNAs in cells because its normal products are small, highly structured RNAs that are found in a variety of subcellular compartments. We have designed cassettes that use human pol III promoters for the high-level expression of small RNAs in the cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, and nucleolus. The levels and subcellular destinations of the transcripts are compared for transcripts expressed using the U6 small nuclear RNA (snRNA), 5S ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and the 7SL RNA component of the signal recognition particle. The most effective location for a particular inhibitory RNA is not necessarily predictable; thus these cassettes allow testing of the same RNA insert in multiple subcellular locations. Several small interfering RNA (siRNA) inserts were tested for efficacy. An siRNA insert that reduces lamin expression when transcribed from the U6 snRNA promoter in the nucleus has no effect on lamin expression when transcribed from 5S rRNA and 7SL RNA-based cassettes and found in the nucleolus and cytoplasm. To test further the generality of U6-driven siRNA inhibitors, siRNAs targeting HIV were tested by co-transfection with provirus in cell culture. Although the degree of HIV-1 inhibition varied among inserts, results show that the U6 cassette provides a means of expressing an siRNA-like inhibitor of HIV gene expression.